Yes, but this was from an adjacent work station. Equivalent to unplugging your circular saw in the garage, only to be attacked by the refrigerator in the next room.
If that's the case, then it's a design failure and the engineer that signed it should be procecuted.
If you have a risk to be attacked by the circular saw and the fridge while you're in the garage, then opening the safety circuit of the garage should disable both the fridge and the circular saw.
And if the engineer did it because he was pressured because disabling the fridge in this case will affect the production, then it's even worst since the engineer willingly bypassed a safety measures.
In my mind, industrial robot are still the most dangerous piece of hardware you'll ever work with, period.
I programmed welding robots for a few years in the 90's, and I agree. Close calls are common. I once got very close to breaking a coworker's arm with a robot, except that I released the deadman switch in time.
Do you want to hear something even scarier? Robot compagnie like ABB are actually working to make their robot appear less dangerous : http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp2...
"We want to lower the fear of robot because it affects our sales". Can you freaking believe it? If you got an operator working with a robot, you have to make it clear that if he doesn't respect the safety procedure or the robot speed/strength, he "will" endanger himself. Robot "are" dangerous.
What it'll be next? Dress him as a Teddy Bear so children will want to hug him?
Well... the terminator was only doing exactly what it was programmed to do.;) The terminator programmers were, fortunately, very bad at their jobs.
The way I see it, terminator are "real" AI. Meaning that you program the AI, then AI evolve by itself the same way the brain of a baby does. It can "think outside the box".
Industrial robot program can't. And they also can't deactivate their safety measure. If you open the safety game, the robot "will" deactivate no matter how fancy your program is.
"Robot" engineer here. And when I say "Robot", I really talk about "Industrial Robot". Not the one that look like human.
It's 2015 all over again when another "Robot" killed a Volkswagen worker. People were all "Matrix have begun" rogue.
First, let me tell you to scary part : "The robot have done exactly what it have been programmed to".
Second, let me tell you the encouraging part : "The robot have done exactly what it have been programmed to".
It's always the same thing, "industrial robot" kill/hurt someone, and we see an headline about Robot revolution coming to kill us all in Terminator style. Those robot are just basic program controlling a bunch of servomotor, nothing "AI rogue humanoid robot with a shutgun" like. But there's on thing that are common to each of those story : "Safety violation".
In my mind, industrial robot are still the most dangerous piece of hardware you'll ever work with, period. And that's why there's a shit ton of safety measure for them. Yeah gears are dangerous and could tear off your finger, but you indistinctly know that as long as you don't put your finger close to them, they won't bite you. It's not the case with robot.
Back to the Volkswagen case, the worker didn't respect the safety procedure. The robot are connected to a safety gate that "must" be open when there's a worker inside the cell. You enter the cell, you put your lock in the gate to deactivate everything dangerous inside of it. But, from what I've understand, those worker wanted to work fast and took a "shortcut" while testing their equipment and decided to close the gate while a worker was inside. Of of the system then activated the robot that started it's wielding procedure with the worker right between both : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Look between 0:05 and 0:30, everything else in this video is shit).
I work constantly in this sort of system and you'll be amazed how many "close call" I've seem so far. The thing is, people are completely clueless about robot (Hell, one time I was presenting a robotic cell with two KUKA robotic arm to some potential customer and one of the cute asian girl asked me if she should "see" the body of the robot. She was thinking there's was a huge robot under the floor controlling the two arm).
Long story short : Respect the freaking safety procedure.
How did they 3D extrude the wiring and meet code? I'd love to hear more!
Concrete is a good insulator for russian winters, right? Amazing! How good was the R-value? How was the rebar extruded?
Love how the paint was 3D printed too!
I could go on. The frame of most houses is NOT where the majority of the expense is. I hate seeing these wild claims about 3D printing, which wile cool are disingenuous and skip over so many important details that turn out to be real buzz kills.
Ha come on!
Nobody got "fooled" by the headline thinking the "whole" house (appliance included) was 3D printed. Don't be silly.
This is an incredible achievement for what it seem to be the first affordable 3D house. It's incredible and it's good for must of us.
Or didn't you see how insanely expensive house are nowadays? If anything, this technology will bring back their price to our grandparents's days. And one the plus side, I can't way too see what crazy concept will emerge from the capability to print anything in 3D with concrete. Slide from bed to hot tub? Tunnel to wire everything in our house easily? Fire-proof house? House that transform in a trailer?
You're neglecting to calculate how often a condition will happen in which a parachute will be able to save more people than a controlled crash. System safety 101 tells us that risk = severity * probability. Not running the probability numbers means you're only getting half the picture. It'll very quickly lead down the road of "if it saves just one life...", and the only thing you'll find there is madness. My argument is that the probability of conditions occuring in which a parachute would be beneficial is so small as to be basically zero. You'll get greater return in terms of lives saved per unit of engineering if you spend it elsewhere (e.g. adding more redundancy to the aircraft, safer airframe design, smarter health monitoring, etc.).
I've read your comment and I could respond it by copy-pasting the last one I've wrote. Did you really read my comment?
Let me ask you something else then. Are you 100% certain that it's absolutely impossible (even in a millennium) to design a safety measure that will safe all passager that are alive in a plane (to discard to one that have been killed by a bomb or something) before it's inevitable crash?
If the answer is "Yes", then you're absolutely right and we should completely neglect any further R&D about personal survival feature in case of failure.
One of the other things that goes along with safety analysis though is looking at both the consequences of some failure as well as the probability of that failure happening. There are so few instances of commercial aircraft going down in such a way that ejecting passengers would have saved more people than attempting a controlled crash landing that it's a safety system that just doesn't make sense. Even if you could implement it for free, on the (incredibly rare) instances it would have to be used everything would be so far out of operational parameters that it probably wouldn't accomplish much.
Again, engineering problem.
If the calculated survivability of using parachute is on par with not using them, that mean two things :
- R&D can be done to raise survivability of the said parachute - R&D can be done to raise the efficiency to detect an absolute death condition required to deploy to said parachute to be sure you won't deploy it for people that would survive without it
And. as I said, this is exactly that sort of "we have done some research and our conclusion is that this is impossible" attitude that I criticize those airliner maker for. No it's not impossible, it just haven't been developed yet.
But some *do* consider adding chute that could try to e.g.: save the cabin in care of dramatic loss of engines etc.
Exactly,
I'm not sure that when we talk about emergency safety system in case of commercial airline failure, ejection seat always come as "the solution". Airliner aren't going at Mach 2 with a AAM at their tail. Of course they aren't a commercially viable option.
A parachute for each person weight way less than their luggage. It's not a economical problem, it's a engineering one. How can you make a system that "will" save live "without" the risk of failure that could "cost" additional lives?
For instance let's suppose we install automatic parachute on each seat with adequate belt and the floor open and detach those seat in case of emergency. Does it operate automatically? If yes what about that system risk of failure and activating without warning inflight? Does it operate manually? Then what about cases with rogue pilot like the one that crashed that airliner in Germany?
I honestly find that this is a system that "can" be solved but Boeing and Airbus hide behind the economical argument to just not work about this. On the other hand, there's also the fact that airliner are statistically safer than taking your car.
I kinda have the same reaction as if the headline said "For the First Time, More US Households Have Netflix Than a FishTank".
Putting aside that put are (usually) connected to a TV, how exactly are those two related? Especially when one is complementary to the other (and not exclusive).
Even if it's not cheaper than that, it still serves to reduce the net cost of the cleanup of spills, adding to the incentive to pay for the cleanup. It may also provide incentive to get on the cleanup sooner, as the sooner they get on it the more recoverable oil there is.
Exactly,
Completely made up number for the example.
Let's say 1 barril of oil worth 100$
Pumping 1 barril of oil cost 50$
Cleaning up 1 barril of oil cost 90$
Even if pumping is 5 time more profitable than cleaning, it's still profitable and you got all the infrastructure already to get the 100$ from the baril you clean up.
It's making money and reduce the cost of penality. Win-Win
But if this sponge is still not profitable, then, clearly on a business point of view, it's a simple equation :
IF (Cost to clean - Profit from Oil) > Cost penalty from Lawsuit, THEN Don't Clean
Because if the Switch was a stunning 4K (710 PPI for a 6.2" screen), people wouldn't complain much because the pixel are too tiny to be noticeable if they die.
But at 720P (237 PPI), that's a whole different world. It's comparable to the first Samsung Galaxy S with 233 PPI. Even the new iPhone 7 is not "that" far ahead with 326 ppi (well, the Galaxy S7 have over 500 PPI).
We all know this "should" be illegal. As the internet grows more available, everyone will be able to Stream any content online for mere profit on ads (yeah I know the Cable/TV company aren't the nicest bunch).
But how do you define when a Stream or recorded start to be illegal? Streaming UFC is illegal? Fine, but about the guy that upload a cat video on youtube that "happens" to show a part of a UFC gala. Oh, No direct view then? Then what about a UFC stream with an angle on the camera?
It's going to be very, very hard to draw an hard line on this.
I honestly blinked twice and double checked that I was on Slashdot after I've read that title. I was like, "Jay Z opinion? Here?"
So, putting aside the near zero value of an Hip-Hop artist opinion in a science website, I'm not sure what's so surprising about that statement. Internet took the crown of music entertainment and radio is trying to survive with talk show and exclusivity of new hit music. But, on a consumer point of view, I don't see the problem as we never had that much easy access to music as ever before and new artist can more easily spread their music without the recording studio. The only downside I see is about artist with smaller audience where streaming revenue are less than nothing.
Yeah we see a lot of breakthrough in "AI" technologies (AI beat GO champion last year, AI got better to identify skin cancer this year), but as far as I understand AI, it's basically plugging the program to a (insanely huge) database about the subject and help him interpolate the input and it's own data. That's computer program getting better, not getting "intelligent".
Or is my definition of "AI" that off the mark? I mean, for me intelligence implies some sort of "conscience" that can make decision "outside the box". No matter how fancy the GO of dermatologist AI get, they will never do more than their field because they are not programmed to do so.
As much as I love Elon and his accomplishments, let's not forget that SpaceX reusable launch system's costs to refurbish and relaunch are not demonstrated...yet. Have they forgotten the the Space Shuttle Program already?
Try browsing with all comments enabled, as you are meant to if moderating. A guy died and yet all some people can post is hateful, racist and often off topic rants. The worst posts are by anonymous cowards. After you have read some of those, usually already mod to -1, tell me you wouldn't mod them down too? Slashdot does not allow you to both mod and comment in the same post, which is a fair restriction. I chose to post as I take the death of a coworker personally and think it is something to be talked about constructively and like adults.
BTW when I mod I almost always mod up, not down, and I try to mod based in the value of the content, not my view. If I disagree with a view I will not mod it down for that reason.
I would note that most post that attack me lack any real arguments, they are just rhetoric. Some are well reason, even if I disagree, I will at least try and understand their view point and respond appropriately.
Thumbs Up for the section in bold.
Listen, I understand your noble cause and everything, but you'll achieve nothing trying to fight hate troll and lurk even here on Slashdot. Save yourself some sanity in topic that are personal like this one and filter everything under 1.
That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each.
I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.
For the cost to manufacture, I totally agree. And it's the hearth of the problem.How much it cost per ketchup plastic bottle? I've read about ~2 cents with a quick google search.
About the efficiency, not so much. What is lost really? less than 0.1%? It doesn't weight much.
And on the other hand, you have the great marketing value of these bottle.
It's almost impossible to eradicate cheaters in CS:GO and similar games for one important reason: CS:GO servers send you full information about all the gamers who're playing the match with you, which means it's quite trivial to intercept this information and modify certain game engine variables to e.g. make other players visible though the walls (wallhack) or to make your bullets always reach the destination (aimbot). Now even if you don't send all the information, the game still has to show other visible nearby players to you, so dealing with aimbots seems like a lost game.
Well, the root of the problem is in this very paragraph.
As long as a competitive game will calculate stuff on the client side, hacking will happen. As the technology of hacking software grow, sooner or later we'll have to switch server side.
Let me give you an example of an extreme. The game could be computed 100% on the Server side and the client receive the audio + video output over the internet. Then client send the input (keyboard + mouse) to the server. Eventually hacker will figure out a way to analyse the screen to identify other player and control the mouse accordingly but most problematic hack will be neutralized this way.
Of course, computing "everything" server side and sending the video over the internet is a bit extreme (well, until everyone is connected to Google Fiber) but you get the point. To solve hacking, find their input and move them from client side to server side.
Honestly, I don't see how VR could fail. It's a incredible feature for a lot of game (Try Elite Dangerous with a X52 joystick and I dare you to tell me otherwise).
Right now (and I emphasize on that), the only drawback is, well, money for both the consumer and the developer.
The specs needed to support VR is insane right now. Top that the +1000$ bucks for the VR and you'll scare more than a few. The cost for AAA game too is problematic as cannot use fixed cam to render only a part of the games. Top that the small number of people that can afford the VR and it's already unprofitable unless you're making a game that can play with or without VR.
I say, give it some time and, sooner or later, the VR will boom.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm unsure banning children of uneducated parent is the best course of action...
Really? The matrix reboot was the trigger?
I mean, really, there was 4 Sharknado movie. I've found that they run out of ideas a looooooong time ago.
"Or didn't you see how insanely expensive house are nowadays? "
LOL, now who's being silly? It's not because of the materials or the construction method!
This company (legitimately) claim they can build house 70% cheaper. I fail to see your point.
Yes, but this was from an adjacent work station. Equivalent to unplugging your circular saw in the garage, only to be attacked by the refrigerator in the next room.
If that's the case, then it's a design failure and the engineer that signed it should be procecuted.
If you have a risk to be attacked by the circular saw and the fridge while you're in the garage, then opening the safety circuit of the garage should disable both the fridge and the circular saw.
And if the engineer did it because he was pressured because disabling the fridge in this case will affect the production, then it's even worst since the engineer willingly bypassed a safety measures.
In my mind, industrial robot are still the most dangerous piece of hardware you'll ever work with, period.
I programmed welding robots for a few years in the 90's, and I agree. Close calls are common. I once got very close to breaking a coworker's arm with a robot, except that I released the deadman switch in time.
Do you want to hear something even scarier? Robot compagnie like ABB are actually working to make their robot appear less dangerous : http://www.abb.com/cawp/seitp2...
"We want to lower the fear of robot because it affects our sales". Can you freaking believe it? If you got an operator working with a robot, you have to make it clear that if he doesn't respect the safety procedure or the robot speed/strength, he "will" endanger himself. Robot "are" dangerous.
What it'll be next? Dress him as a Teddy Bear so children will want to hug him?
Well... the terminator was only doing exactly what it was programmed to do. ;) The terminator programmers were, fortunately, very bad at their jobs.
The way I see it, terminator are "real" AI. Meaning that you program the AI, then AI evolve by itself the same way the brain of a baby does. It can "think outside the box".
Industrial robot program can't. And they also can't deactivate their safety measure. If you open the safety game, the robot "will" deactivate no matter how fancy your program is.
"Robot" engineer here. And when I say "Robot", I really talk about "Industrial Robot". Not the one that look like human.
It's 2015 all over again when another "Robot" killed a Volkswagen worker. People were all "Matrix have begun" rogue.
First, let me tell you to scary part : "The robot have done exactly what it have been programmed to".
Second, let me tell you the encouraging part : "The robot have done exactly what it have been programmed to".
It's always the same thing, "industrial robot" kill/hurt someone, and we see an headline about Robot revolution coming to kill us all in Terminator style. Those robot are just basic program controlling a bunch of servomotor, nothing "AI rogue humanoid robot with a shutgun" like. But there's on thing that are common to each of those story : "Safety violation".
In my mind, industrial robot are still the most dangerous piece of hardware you'll ever work with, period. And that's why there's a shit ton of safety measure for them. Yeah gears are dangerous and could tear off your finger, but you indistinctly know that as long as you don't put your finger close to them, they won't bite you. It's not the case with robot.
Back to the Volkswagen case, the worker didn't respect the safety procedure. The robot are connected to a safety gate that "must" be open when there's a worker inside the cell. You enter the cell, you put your lock in the gate to deactivate everything dangerous inside of it. But, from what I've understand, those worker wanted to work fast and took a "shortcut" while testing their equipment and decided to close the gate while a worker was inside. Of of the system then activated the robot that started it's wielding procedure with the worker right between both : https://www.youtube.com/watch?... (Look between 0:05 and 0:30, everything else in this video is shit).
I work constantly in this sort of system and you'll be amazed how many "close call" I've seem so far. The thing is, people are completely clueless about robot (Hell, one time I was presenting a robotic cell with two KUKA robotic arm to some potential customer and one of the cute asian girl asked me if she should "see" the body of the robot. She was thinking there's was a huge robot under the floor controlling the two arm).
Long story short : Respect the freaking safety procedure.
That wood flooring was 3D printed?! Cool!
How did they 3D extrude the wiring and meet code? I'd love to hear more!
Concrete is a good insulator for russian winters, right? Amazing! How good was the R-value? How was the rebar extruded?
Love how the paint was 3D printed too!
I could go on. The frame of most houses is NOT where the majority of the expense is. I hate seeing these wild claims about 3D printing, which wile cool are disingenuous and skip over so many important details that turn out to be real buzz kills.
Ha come on!
Nobody got "fooled" by the headline thinking the "whole" house (appliance included) was 3D printed. Don't be silly.
This is an incredible achievement for what it seem to be the first affordable 3D house. It's incredible and it's good for must of us.
Or didn't you see how insanely expensive house are nowadays? If anything, this technology will bring back their price to our grandparents's days. And one the plus side, I can't way too see what crazy concept will emerge from the capability to print anything in 3D with concrete. Slide from bed to hot tub? Tunnel to wire everything in our house easily? Fire-proof house? House that transform in a trailer?
I can't wait.
You're neglecting to calculate how often a condition will happen in which a parachute will be able to save more people than a controlled crash. System safety 101 tells us that risk = severity * probability. Not running the probability numbers means you're only getting half the picture. It'll very quickly lead down the road of "if it saves just one life...", and the only thing you'll find there is madness. My argument is that the probability of conditions occuring in which a parachute would be beneficial is so small as to be basically zero. You'll get greater return in terms of lives saved per unit of engineering if you spend it elsewhere (e.g. adding more redundancy to the aircraft, safer airframe design, smarter health monitoring, etc.).
I've read your comment and I could respond it by copy-pasting the last one I've wrote. Did you really read my comment?
Let me ask you something else then. Are you 100% certain that it's absolutely impossible (even in a millennium) to design a safety measure that will safe all passager that are alive in a plane (to discard to one that have been killed by a bomb or something) before it's inevitable crash?
If the answer is "Yes", then you're absolutely right and we should completely neglect any further R&D about personal survival feature in case of failure.
One of the other things that goes along with safety analysis though is looking at both the consequences of some failure as well as the probability of that failure happening. There are so few instances of commercial aircraft going down in such a way that ejecting passengers would have saved more people than attempting a controlled crash landing that it's a safety system that just doesn't make sense. Even if you could implement it for free, on the (incredibly rare) instances it would have to be used everything would be so far out of operational parameters that it probably wouldn't accomplish much.
Again, engineering problem.
If the calculated survivability of using parachute is on par with not using them, that mean two things :
- R&D can be done to raise survivability of the said parachute
- R&D can be done to raise the efficiency to detect an absolute death condition required to deploy to said parachute to be sure you won't deploy it for people that would survive without it
And. as I said, this is exactly that sort of "we have done some research and our conclusion is that this is impossible" attitude that I criticize those airliner maker for. No it's not impossible, it just haven't been developed yet.
Commercial jets aren't indeed doing ejection seats.
But some *do* consider adding chute that could try to e.g.: save the cabin in care of dramatic loss of engines etc.
Exactly,
I'm not sure that when we talk about emergency safety system in case of commercial airline failure, ejection seat always come as "the solution". Airliner aren't going at Mach 2 with a AAM at their tail. Of course they aren't a commercially viable option.
A parachute for each person weight way less than their luggage. It's not a economical problem, it's a engineering one. How can you make a system that "will" save live "without" the risk of failure that could "cost" additional lives?
For instance let's suppose we install automatic parachute on each seat with adequate belt and the floor open and detach those seat in case of emergency. Does it operate automatically? If yes what about that system risk of failure and activating without warning inflight? Does it operate manually? Then what about cases with rogue pilot like the one that crashed that airliner in Germany?
I honestly find that this is a system that "can" be solved but Boeing and Airbus hide behind the economical argument to just not work about this. On the other hand, there's also the fact that airliner are statistically safer than taking your car.
I kinda have the same reaction as if the headline said "For the First Time, More US Households Have Netflix Than a FishTank".
Putting aside that put are (usually) connected to a TV, how exactly are those two related? Especially when one is complementary to the other (and not exclusive).
Even if it's not cheaper than that, it still serves to reduce the net cost of the cleanup of spills, adding to the incentive to pay for the cleanup. It may also provide incentive to get on the cleanup sooner, as the sooner they get on it the more recoverable oil there is.
Exactly,
Completely made up number for the example.
Let's say 1 barril of oil worth 100$
Pumping 1 barril of oil cost 50$
Cleaning up 1 barril of oil cost 90$
Even if pumping is 5 time more profitable than cleaning, it's still profitable and you got all the infrastructure already to get the 100$ from the baril you clean up.
It's making money and reduce the cost of penality. Win-Win
But if this sponge is still not profitable, then, clearly on a business point of view, it's a simple equation :
IF (Cost to clean - Profit from Oil) > Cost penalty from Lawsuit, THEN Don't Clean
Because if the Switch was a stunning 4K (710 PPI for a 6.2" screen), people wouldn't complain much because the pixel are too tiny to be noticeable if they die.
But at 720P (237 PPI), that's a whole different world. It's comparable to the first Samsung Galaxy S with 233 PPI. Even the new iPhone 7 is not "that" far ahead with 326 ppi (well, the Galaxy S7 have over 500 PPI).
We all know this "should" be illegal. As the internet grows more available, everyone will be able to Stream any content online for mere profit on ads (yeah I know the Cable/TV company aren't the nicest bunch).
But how do you define when a Stream or recorded start to be illegal? Streaming UFC is illegal? Fine, but about the guy that upload a cat video on youtube that "happens" to show a part of a UFC gala. Oh, No direct view then? Then what about a UFC stream with an angle on the camera?
It's going to be very, very hard to draw an hard line on this.
I can't remember the last time I saw anyone use AOL much less AIM. Got to be over a decade ago...
Crazy right? I though they only existed in old times when everyone had one of those crappy CD somewhere in their CD box.
I honestly blinked twice and double checked that I was on Slashdot after I've read that title. I was like, "Jay Z opinion? Here?"
So, putting aside the near zero value of an Hip-Hop artist opinion in a science website, I'm not sure what's so surprising about that statement. Internet took the crown of music entertainment and radio is trying to survive with talk show and exclusivity of new hit music. But, on a consumer point of view, I don't see the problem as we never had that much easy access to music as ever before and new artist can more easily spread their music without the recording studio. The only downside I see is about artist with smaller audience where streaming revenue are less than nothing.
AI's were beating people in tic-tac-toe in the 1960w.
Well yeah, but anyone with a minimum experience can play equally and not lose. There's only that many combinations of tic tac toe.
If you want an early field where computer destroyed the human, you best bet will be the calculator.
I'm I missing something or all of this (news about AI taking over) is just BS?
Almost as bad as a "Terminator" type of rebellion : https://what-if.xkcd.com/5/
Yeah we see a lot of breakthrough in "AI" technologies (AI beat GO champion last year, AI got better to identify skin cancer this year), but as far as I understand AI, it's basically plugging the program to a (insanely huge) database about the subject and help him interpolate the input and it's own data. That's computer program getting better, not getting "intelligent".
Or is my definition of "AI" that off the mark? I mean, for me intelligence implies some sort of "conscience" that can make decision "outside the box". No matter how fancy the GO of dermatologist AI get, they will never do more than their field because they are not programmed to do so.
As much as I love Elon and his accomplishments, let's not forget that SpaceX reusable launch system's costs to refurbish and relaunch are not demonstrated...yet. Have they forgotten the the Space Shuttle Program already?
Try browsing with all comments enabled, as you are meant to if moderating. A guy died and yet all some people can post is hateful, racist and often off topic rants. The worst posts are by anonymous cowards. After you have read some of those, usually already mod to -1, tell me you wouldn't mod them down too? Slashdot does not allow you to both mod and comment in the same post, which is a fair restriction. I chose to post as I take the death of a coworker personally and think it is something to be talked about constructively and like adults.
BTW when I mod I almost always mod up, not down, and I try to mod based in the value of the content, not my view. If I disagree with a view I will not mod it down for that reason.
I would note that most post that attack me lack any real arguments, they are just rhetoric. Some are well reason, even if I disagree, I will at least try and understand their view point and respond appropriately.
Thumbs Up for the section in bold.
Listen, I understand your noble cause and everything, but you'll achieve nothing trying to fight hate troll and lurk even here on Slashdot. Save yourself some sanity in topic that are personal like this one and filter everything under 1.
Oh yeah, and obligatory xkcd : https://xkcd.com/386/
I have 15 mod points now that I can't use since I am posting here. I could have used them to mod down the hateful posts but I want to post
So you use your mod points to mod down AC troll?
...that will never work.
That would cost more to manufacture, and you would sell less bottles as you would squeeze more out of each.
I cannot see how the manufacturers would be interested in that.
For the cost to manufacture, I totally agree. And it's the hearth of the problem.How much it cost per ketchup plastic bottle? I've read about ~2 cents with a quick google search.
About the efficiency, not so much. What is lost really? less than 0.1%? It doesn't weight much.
And on the other hand, you have the great marketing value of these bottle.
It's almost impossible to eradicate cheaters in CS:GO and similar games for one important reason: CS:GO servers send you full information about all the gamers who're playing the match with you, which means it's quite trivial to intercept this information and modify certain game engine variables to e.g. make other players visible though the walls (wallhack) or to make your bullets always reach the destination (aimbot). Now even if you don't send all the information, the game still has to show other visible nearby players to you, so dealing with aimbots seems like a lost game.
Well, the root of the problem is in this very paragraph.
As long as a competitive game will calculate stuff on the client side, hacking will happen. As the technology of hacking software grow, sooner or later we'll have to switch server side.
Let me give you an example of an extreme. The game could be computed 100% on the Server side and the client receive the audio + video output over the internet. Then client send the input (keyboard + mouse) to the server. Eventually hacker will figure out a way to analyse the screen to identify other player and control the mouse accordingly but most problematic hack will be neutralized this way.
Of course, computing "everything" server side and sending the video over the internet is a bit extreme (well, until everyone is connected to Google Fiber) but you get the point. To solve hacking, find their input and move them from client side to server side.
Honestly, I don't see how VR could fail. It's a incredible feature for a lot of game (Try Elite Dangerous with a X52 joystick and I dare you to tell me otherwise).
Right now (and I emphasize on that), the only drawback is, well, money for both the consumer and the developer.
The specs needed to support VR is insane right now. Top that the +1000$ bucks for the VR and you'll scare more than a few. The cost for AAA game too is problematic as cannot use fixed cam to render only a part of the games. Top that the small number of people that can afford the VR and it's already unprofitable unless you're making a game that can play with or without VR.
I say, give it some time and, sooner or later, the VR will boom.