What the phone companies can and can't do with POTS is highly regulated. They have been on a crusade to do away with the regulations for a long time. This is a simpler way to get rid of the regulations.
If we look closely enough it is quite likely that we will find spree shooters all had drivers licenses. Talk about a key similarity! Put another way, correlation and causality would like to have a chat with you. If taking anti depression drugs was linked to spree killings CA freeways would be clear of traffic because there wouldn't be anyone left alive.
Section 215 includes the lovely clause that you are not allow to mention that you have received one. The fact that Apple is saying they haven't in interesting because if they stop saying there is a very clear inference that can be drawn. Think of it as a canary - when you see that line dropped in subsequent reports you can assume Apple has received one, even though they won't be able to say so.
The game engine I wrote on the N64 decoupled game simulation from rendering, this isn't a novel concept. So, I can't answer you question since it is a misunderstanding of what I was saying. See my reply to AC for details on how rendering frame rate affects latency.
In your scenario the action started at exactly the same time. Then things diverge. The game state changing and reacting is driven by the game refresh rate (which may be independent of the video refresh rate). The latency between the game state change and the visual feedback is directly linked to the video refresh rate.
As an example if you have the same game running on two machines, one at 60Hz and the other at 1Hz. In both cases you press the button at exactly the same time. The game update will process that button press and start a muzzle flash, that took some period of time that we will assume is equal for both machines (i.e. I won't make the slow rendering machine also have a slow game update, even if typicaly the two are tightly coupled). So 1/nth of a second after the button press both machines are ready to show the muzzle flash. On the first machine you will see the muzzle flash 16.6 milliseconds later. On the 1Hz machine the muzzle flash will appear 1 second later.
Now, my example is a bit extreme (to make it obvious that there is a difference. Do not think that this is irrelevant in real word cases. I worked on one of the first fps games to win awards for jump puzzles that were not atrocious. Early on we spent a lot of time testing the game at 30Hz and at 60Hz. If we ran the game at 30 we could effectively double the quality of the graphics, which the art team obviously wanted so that they could do even greater stuff. But after blind testing we found that everyone noticed "something" was better about the game that ran at 60Hz. Reducing the latency between the button press and the jump allowed players to gage the jump point more accurately. Reducing the latency of the joystick movements allowed the player to guide their landings more accurately.
One final note, maintaining a consistent frame rate is even more critical, players have to know that when the press "x" they will get the same result.
I completely agree that a HUD nav system would be superior. That is not what Google glass is. Given the context of the conversation I have to speak out against Google Glass in a car. This evening a friend posted this on his FB page (*hangs head in shame* yes, I read FB to catch up on friends). The relevant part is the "I didn't see him" defense. It is prevalent in the US for drivers to be exonerated from wrong doing when it is obvious they were completely negligent. Google Glass in a car will only push that further.
http://blogs.bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2013/10/29/theres-another-way/
I will give you credit for making me learn that the image is projected a certain distance out. However, it still requires a change in focus, albeit more mental than ocular. Which keeps to my point of reading a text while driving will make you lose focus on what is going on around your car.
Focusing on the Glass display is actually quite easy, and doesn’t result in everything else becoming visually out of focus. This is because the focal point of the projected image is not on the surface of the Glass prism, but rather about 8 feet out from your current position. Even being nearsighted, without my contacts, the Glass display is unreadable as my eyesight at 8 feet is all but a blur. However, even though your eye focus may not change, the display doesn’t create an image that fits within 3D space. It’s still a 2D plane that is floating in 3D space, which results in you having to make a conscious decision of which plane to mentally focus on. Watching someone use Glass almost looks as if they’re daydreaming; their eyes are locked to the position of the Glass display and it is tough to break their concentration
Projecting an image out into space is not what a HUD does. That would be more in the realm of a holographic projector. But since that technology would have to be invented by geeks, the first thing they would project would be Princess Leah saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." And then they would die in a fiery crash because they were transfixed by the vision of Leah. Leaving mankind with no idea how to replicate the tech. Thinking about it, who knows how many times this tech has already been invented only to be lost in a tragic car fatality.
1. This thread is about a HUD with email on display. Email is entertainment when it comes to driving. It has nothing to do with information that needs to be processed while driving. I am willing to grant that someone developing a HUD for a car, and nothing else would be a great addition to my car.
2. I think I covered this in (1), but allow me to repeat that if someone built what you're talking about and made it so that it was only providing driving AR functions (i.e. no text message pop ups, youtube is all out) it would be awesome.
3. In the US alone there are over 30,000 car fatalities per year. I think that is a large enough number to justify using the word carnage: the killing of a large number of people. If you don't then I am sorry that you were offended. What word would you use to describe 30k+ deaths a year?
Wow, I provide a link to a study that shows people can't multitask, and you wave your dick around as if that would distract from you having no facts. I'll ignore the small phallus seeking attention, and bring you back to the subject at hand (hint, it is not what is in your hand).
You are comparing short duration tasks to a long duration task. You do not read emails in one second bursts. And while you are focused on the email you are not multitasking (see my link for proof - note that was the first one that google listed, there are many more). During that time the situation around you is evolving and you are not aware of it. Sure a big red semi drifting over might catch your attention, but you drifting out of your lane won't. A kid running up to the street won't. Will you be able to avoid some incidents, of course. Will you be as safe as someone driving without the distraction of reading slashdot on the road, not even close.
This discussion is about HUD glasses not car HUD systems. A car HUD system could well decrease the fatality rate on our roads. An entertainment HUD system like the one discussed here is a distraction and will add to the carnage on our roads.
Sorry - the confluence of your name and the video subject matter was just too easy, I would like to clearly state that my comment was purely meant to be ironic and in no way a reflection of BHI.
And yes, the idea of some fucktard catching up on Breaking Bad as a way to occupy time while commuting fills me with fear too.
I agree a properly developed HUD would be an improvement, and there are cars that are beginning to use them. But they are not Google Glass, they are car HUDs. Google Glass hooked up to your phone is a distraction and saying that just because it might be completely reengineered into something good for driving does not make it good for driving.
A HUD with email might be less of an impairment than reading a speedometer for 1-2 seconds? Really. We need to spend how much money doing studies to find out that reading text
a) takes longer
b) longer distraction times will be more distracting
No. A hud with email or text will be a distraction to driving far worse than looking at the speedometer - which you've already established a upper threshold of how much distraction to allow. Ban the crap out of this until a reliable study shows that this really isn't obvious and that taking your eyes off the road to read an email or text for 5+ seconds somehow makes drivers safe and skunks smell like unicorn farts.
I'll add
3. The integrated HUD displays information relevant to the operation and survival of the craft and nothing else. It does not provide distracting text messages from mom and ex-girlfriends(*) when missiles are locked on to you/a child is about to leap from behind a car.
(*) Note, the ex-girlfriends applies to military pilots, they are studs and have real ex-girlfriends.
Somebody named "Big Hairy Ian" mentioned a video of dubious taste and you ask for a link?!! I survived slashdot in the 90's without being scared by goatse, I don't need to make up for it now.
Just because the information is in your line of sight does not mean that it is in your focus. You have to shift focus to see information in the near plane. And there is a reason HUDs use graphic icons, they are faster for the brain to process. And the plane HUD displays information directly relevant to the successful operation/survival of the aircraft. Reading text takes several orders of magnitude longer to process. If you are traveling at 30mph (slow residential speed) and you read a text for 5 seconds, you have traveled 77 yards, nearly a football field, and you then have to refocus on the outside and scan for any new threats, which will take additional time.
If I was to tell you that I would drive down your street at 30 mph once a day with my eyes closed for a 100 yard section, and I was to do it when you little brother/ daughter/insert loved one was out playing would you be as cavalier about the costs of distracted driving?
or, to answer you question, no I would not inform the world's air forces that you don't understand the difference between a military HUD and a recreational distraction.
Reading the summary I was wondering if this would have any applications to improve detection of stealth aircraft. So I *gulp please don't mod me to oblivion* read the article. It's light on details, but not what I expected from the summary. The guy was able to build a sonar, followed by a radar that is able to distinguish between different materials. It's potential uses are for detecting explosives hidden in rubble and such, and for finding buried victims after some form of disaster (specifically homing in on their phones and other such devices). Oh, and it's cheap, if you know what you're doing you can build it for two bucks.
A patent may be essential to entering a market and as a result will allow the owner a complete lock on that market. E.g. Viagra. Pfizer owns the patent on that and the only way for someone to enter the ED market is to create something completely different. Patents explicitly allow for an owner to completely lock the market for themselves. [Note: this is not a discussion about if this is over all good or bad for creativity]
Standard essential patents [SEP] are different. When a standard is being defined, patent owners may chose to submit their patents into the standard definition. In doing so they guarantee that every implementation of that standard will have to pay them a share of the royalties. Choosing to withhold their patents will probably result in the standard finding workarounds and likely will result in no one licensing the patent. Because the SEP is essential to standard, the standard committee only accepts the patents under the promise that they will be licensed under FRAND terms. Otherwise a patent holder could wait for a standard to become ubiquitous (with others paying for its deployment) and then choke the industry with licensing terms that did not reflect their effort to build the market for the patent.
Samsung was using SEPs that were committed to FRAND licensing, and that is the specific no-no that is being addressed here.
If they have essential patents to curved glass, or anything else that hasn't been submitted to a SEP, they are free to lock out that market for themselves. [Once again, this is a comment on the state of our laws, not validation of the existing patent system]
Slashdot Mirror
What the phone companies can and can't do with POTS is highly regulated. They have been on a crusade to do away with the regulations for a long time. This is a simpler way to get rid of the regulations.
If we look closely enough it is quite likely that we will find spree shooters all had drivers licenses. Talk about a key similarity! Put another way, correlation and causality would like to have a chat with you. If taking anti depression drugs was linked to spree killings CA freeways would be clear of traffic because there wouldn't be anyone left alive.
Don't get nostalgic about the old manual days where an employee might have a chance to glance at your postcard. These days the post-office (and by extension every branch of government that wants to) memorizes each and every post card you receive. http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130703/12551523709/old-school-metadata-still-being-harvested-usps-turned-over-to-law-enforcementsecurity-agencies-request.shtml
according to wiki, the patriot act includes a gag order. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_security_letter
Section 215 includes the lovely clause that you are not allow to mention that you have received one. The fact that Apple is saying they haven't in interesting because if they stop saying there is a very clear inference that can be drawn. Think of it as a canary - when you see that line dropped in subsequent reports you can assume Apple has received one, even though they won't be able to say so.
The game engine I wrote on the N64 decoupled game simulation from rendering, this isn't a novel concept. So, I can't answer you question since it is a misunderstanding of what I was saying. See my reply to AC for details on how rendering frame rate affects latency.
In your scenario the action started at exactly the same time. Then things diverge. The game state changing and reacting is driven by the game refresh rate (which may be independent of the video refresh rate). The latency between the game state change and the visual feedback is directly linked to the video refresh rate.
As an example if you have the same game running on two machines, one at 60Hz and the other at 1Hz. In both cases you press the button at exactly the same time. The game update will process that button press and start a muzzle flash, that took some period of time that we will assume is equal for both machines (i.e. I won't make the slow rendering machine also have a slow game update, even if typicaly the two are tightly coupled). So 1/nth of a second after the button press both machines are ready to show the muzzle flash. On the first machine you will see the muzzle flash 16.6 milliseconds later. On the 1Hz machine the muzzle flash will appear 1 second later.
Now, my example is a bit extreme (to make it obvious that there is a difference. Do not think that this is irrelevant in real word cases. I worked on one of the first fps games to win awards for jump puzzles that were not atrocious. Early on we spent a lot of time testing the game at 30Hz and at 60Hz. If we ran the game at 30 we could effectively double the quality of the graphics, which the art team obviously wanted so that they could do even greater stuff. But after blind testing we found that everyone noticed "something" was better about the game that ran at 60Hz. Reducing the latency between the button press and the jump allowed players to gage the jump point more accurately. Reducing the latency of the joystick movements allowed the player to guide their landings more accurately.
One final note, maintaining a consistent frame rate is even more critical, players have to know that when the press "x" they will get the same result.
Refresh rate also reduces latency. Your button press will make a change in the game world sooner the faster the game simulation is running.
I completely agree that a HUD nav system would be superior. That is not what Google glass is. Given the context of the conversation I have to speak out against Google Glass in a car. This evening a friend posted this on his FB page (*hangs head in shame* yes, I read FB to catch up on friends). The relevant part is the "I didn't see him" defense. It is prevalent in the US for drivers to be exonerated from wrong doing when it is obvious they were completely negligent. Google Glass in a car will only push that further.
http://blogs.bicycling.com/blogs/roadrights/2013/10/29/theres-another-way/
Here's one example of many that came up in my search
http://blog.vectorform.com/2013/07/17/the-google-glass-experience/
[emphasis mine]
Focusing on the Glass display is actually quite easy, and doesn’t result in everything else becoming visually out of focus. This is because the focal point of the projected image is not on the surface of the Glass prism, but rather about 8 feet out from your current position. Even being nearsighted, without my contacts, the Glass display is unreadable as my eyesight at 8 feet is all but a blur. However, even though your eye focus may not change, the display doesn’t create an image that fits within 3D space. It’s still a 2D plane that is floating in 3D space, which results in you having to make a conscious decision of which plane to mentally focus on. Watching someone use Glass almost looks as if they’re daydreaming; their eyes are locked to the position of the Glass display and it is tough to break their concentration
Projecting an image out into space is not what a HUD does. That would be more in the realm of a holographic projector. But since that technology would have to be invented by geeks, the first thing they would project would be Princess Leah saying "Help me Obi-Wan Kenobi. You're my only hope." And then they would die in a fiery crash because they were transfixed by the vision of Leah. Leaving mankind with no idea how to replicate the tech. Thinking about it, who knows how many times this tech has already been invented only to be lost in a tragic car fatality.
1. This thread is about a HUD with email on display. Email is entertainment when it comes to driving. It has nothing to do with information that needs to be processed while driving. I am willing to grant that someone developing a HUD for a car, and nothing else would be a great addition to my car.
2. I think I covered this in (1), but allow me to repeat that if someone built what you're talking about and made it so that it was only providing driving AR functions (i.e. no text message pop ups, youtube is all out) it would be awesome.
3. In the US alone there are over 30,000 car fatalities per year. I think that is a large enough number to justify using the word carnage: the killing of a large number of people. If you don't then I am sorry that you were offended. What word would you use to describe 30k+ deaths a year?
Wow, I provide a link to a study that shows people can't multitask, and you wave your dick around as if that would distract from you having no facts. I'll ignore the small phallus seeking attention, and bring you back to the subject at hand (hint, it is not what is in your hand).
You are comparing short duration tasks to a long duration task. You do not read emails in one second bursts. And while you are focused on the email you are not multitasking (see my link for proof - note that was the first one that google listed, there are many more). During that time the situation around you is evolving and you are not aware of it. Sure a big red semi drifting over might catch your attention, but you drifting out of your lane won't. A kid running up to the street won't. Will you be able to avoid some incidents, of course. Will you be as safe as someone driving without the distraction of reading slashdot on the road, not even close.
This discussion is about HUD glasses not car HUD systems. A car HUD system could well decrease the fatality rate on our roads. An entertainment HUD system like the one discussed here is a distraction and will add to the carnage on our roads.
Nope, distracted is distracted
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95256794
Sorry - the confluence of your name and the video subject matter was just too easy, I would like to clearly state that my comment was purely meant to be ironic and in no way a reflection of BHI.
And yes, the idea of some fucktard catching up on Breaking Bad as a way to occupy time while commuting fills me with fear too.
http://www.distraction.gov/content/get-the-facts/facts-and-statistics.html
distracted driving doesn't change just because you changed the delivery mechanism of the distraction.
I have mod points, but I have posted on this thread... Instead I will thank you for the dry humor, well played.
I agree a properly developed HUD would be an improvement, and there are cars that are beginning to use them. But they are not Google Glass, they are car HUDs. Google Glass hooked up to your phone is a distraction and saying that just because it might be completely reengineered into something good for driving does not make it good for driving.
A HUD with email might be less of an impairment than reading a speedometer for 1-2 seconds? Really. We need to spend how much money doing studies to find out that reading text
a) takes longer
b) longer distraction times will be more distracting
No. A hud with email or text will be a distraction to driving far worse than looking at the speedometer - which you've already established a upper threshold of how much distraction to allow. Ban the crap out of this until a reliable study shows that this really isn't obvious and that taking your eyes off the road to read an email or text for 5+ seconds somehow makes drivers safe and skunks smell like unicorn farts.
I'll add
3. The integrated HUD displays information relevant to the operation and survival of the craft and nothing else. It does not provide distracting text messages from mom and ex-girlfriends(*) when missiles are locked on to you/a child is about to leap from behind a car.
(*) Note, the ex-girlfriends applies to military pilots, they are studs and have real ex-girlfriends.
Somebody named "Big Hairy Ian" mentioned a video of dubious taste and you ask for a link?!! I survived slashdot in the 90's without being scared by goatse, I don't need to make up for it now.
Just because the information is in your line of sight does not mean that it is in your focus. You have to shift focus to see information in the near plane. And there is a reason HUDs use graphic icons, they are faster for the brain to process. And the plane HUD displays information directly relevant to the successful operation/survival of the aircraft. Reading text takes several orders of magnitude longer to process. If you are traveling at 30mph (slow residential speed) and you read a text for 5 seconds, you have traveled 77 yards, nearly a football field, and you then have to refocus on the outside and scan for any new threats, which will take additional time.
If I was to tell you that I would drive down your street at 30 mph once a day with my eyes closed for a 100 yard section, and I was to do it when you little brother/ daughter/insert loved one was out playing would you be as cavalier about the costs of distracted driving?
or, to answer you question, no I would not inform the world's air forces that you don't understand the difference between a military HUD and a recreational distraction.
Reading the summary I was wondering if this would have any applications to improve detection of stealth aircraft. So I *gulp please don't mod me to oblivion* read the article. It's light on details, but not what I expected from the summary. The guy was able to build a sonar, followed by a radar that is able to distinguish between different materials. It's potential uses are for detecting explosives hidden in rubble and such, and for finding buried victims after some form of disaster (specifically homing in on their phones and other such devices). Oh, and it's cheap, if you know what you're doing you can build it for two bucks.
A patent may be essential to entering a market and as a result will allow the owner a complete lock on that market. E.g. Viagra. Pfizer owns the patent on that and the only way for someone to enter the ED market is to create something completely different. Patents explicitly allow for an owner to completely lock the market for themselves. [Note: this is not a discussion about if this is over all good or bad for creativity]
Standard essential patents [SEP] are different. When a standard is being defined, patent owners may chose to submit their patents into the standard definition. In doing so they guarantee that every implementation of that standard will have to pay them a share of the royalties. Choosing to withhold their patents will probably result in the standard finding workarounds and likely will result in no one licensing the patent. Because the SEP is essential to standard, the standard committee only accepts the patents under the promise that they will be licensed under FRAND terms. Otherwise a patent holder could wait for a standard to become ubiquitous (with others paying for its deployment) and then choke the industry with licensing terms that did not reflect their effort to build the market for the patent.
Samsung was using SEPs that were committed to FRAND licensing, and that is the specific no-no that is being addressed here.
If they have essential patents to curved glass, or anything else that hasn't been submitted to a SEP, they are free to lock out that market for themselves. [Once again, this is a comment on the state of our laws, not validation of the existing patent system]