The summary specifically calls out physical, intellectual, and emotional. Are they suggesting that in 50 years you'll be able to get a chip implanted because you're depressed? Or stupid? Physical issues are being improved upon markedly. But seriously - fixing perceived issues in how people think seems just wrong. Fixing perceived issues with how people feel doubly so. If this were possible, we'd be squarely in sci-fi AI-controlled-human territory.
While I agree that there would be considerable benefit from this, I think that there's a whole mess of tinfoil hat issues here. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that my government is spying on me (not specifically me, but in general). Giving them all the hardware means no more negotiating with service providers (at any level).
No more sneaking around what is or isn't okay. "This is my hardware, and to protect my hardware, I have to install this additional monitoring." There's the whole "If you aren't doing anything wrong..." argument, but let's not assume that giving the government the "means of distribution" is going to be all sunshine and puppy dogs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that service providers can do whatever they want, but at least then the competition drives them to all be the best (well, we're assuming that "best" and "most profitable" are related). The government has no such goal. It's possible this would even backfire completely and the government would let it languish - they've got dial-up, so our job is done, etc.
The person quoted in the summary appears to have a relatively solid grasp on how to go about being safe on the internet. By that same metric, a large percentage of Slashdot could also be just fine using XP. The problem is that everyone _else_ keeps using XP, and they _don't_ have that same skillset.
I'm happy that Microsoft finally pulled the plug. My goal is that things get bad enough for the small office that I provide support to on a volunteer basis requires them to upgrade. I've had to re-image a bunch of computers already this year because people click things, and companies are taking XP drivers away. Soon enough, I'll be able to say "Too bad, you have to upgrade this time".
So, no super speed, or strength, or other abilities, no synthesizer music.
For our $6,000,000, all we get is a "yeast endowed with special properties other yeasts don't have"? This will not make a compelling television drama. Perhaps a bland sitcom, but not much more.
Re:"hacking charisma"
on
Hacking Charisma
·
· Score: 4, Interesting
You joke, but that was my first thought when I read this gem about 2/3's of the way down:
Her executives are tutored in techniques like “responsibility transfer” [...] and “rewriting reality,” which involves undoing the anguish of a painful experience by coming up with alternative scenarios that transform the event from distressing to excusable.
When this happens, think of the convenience! All you'll need to do is look at the nearest camera and give a thumbs up, and Facebook will automatically mark that you Liked [whatever you're standing near].
Two people could become friends by finding the nearest Big Brother station and doing a thumbs up together.
One of (many) problems will be how they contextualize all that data. You know, this started as a joke, but seriously, if Facebook had a feed of this kind of data, it would be interesting to see the hypothetical profile they build based on what they would see an individual near vs. what they claim to like on their public page.
If your children hasn't seen enough porn already, I pity both you and your offspring
I've considered all kinds of snarky ways to respond to this, but I have this sinking feeling that the context would be lost, and all people would remember is my comment about how much pornography I force my kids to watch while educating them about quality and relevance.
I will be interested to see if the next CEO is so arrogantly out of touch with what people want, or will continue with the standard party line of "we can do no wrong and people really want these things" even when nobody is buying them.
Just so we're clear - the only choices for a successor are those who are either misguided or ignorant?
What about other wholly valid choices, like malicious, insane, or sadistic? I mean, I understand that "brilliant grasp of what consumers desire and need" is probably right out, but we shouldn't limit the field where unsuitable choices are concerned.
I've done this as well - but I don't like effectively misleading management by saying that we need to do X in order to achieve what is only a loosely related Y. Yes, X would make Y easier, or improve Z and W, but it isn't truly essential.
That's not to say things are entirely bad. I've also had management see the true value of some stuff that isn't technically being requested at that very moment, and push things upwards by tying the work to something else in just this manner.
I guess the moral is that I don't want to mislead project owners, but I'm okay if my boss does it for me?
And not just bug hunts. I have a laundry list of things that need to be refactored, but every time we think we might have a chance to do so, project management decides something else is more important. We have people complaining about things being slow, but when told that we need to spend time to make it faster, we instead get directed at new features or, worse, tweaks for the sake of a single non-representative customer that happens to have the ear of the project owner.
This Google insider obviously doesn't understand the problem.
I did a Google search for "google", and the Google homepage showed up 7th on the list (under some news articles and links to Maps and Analytics). Clearly Google doesn't know what they're doing, and needs to use better SEO so that Google will rank them higher.
The bottom line is - if Google showed up higher in the Google search results, more people would use Google.
And even if they did...what's the value? Please explain to me if I'm missing something, but if I can't decrypt it, then my having a copy is just to protect his "insurance policy", in which case I'm aiding and abetting. I assume additional risk with zero potential benefit, except perhaps helping "stick it to the corporate blah blah blah"?
I have a Scooba (Roomba for mopping). If its ability to navigate is an example of the "Autonomous Navigation" described in the summary...well, it's not particularly reassuring about the future of telepresence.
I initially misread the headline as "Cemetery impacts..." and assumed that this was going to be a nice discussion of zombies and/or how to be successful with necromancy.
Unfortunately, once again, it's only a discussion of how to set up abiogenesis.
So, let me get this straight...
The artist looks at it and sees art, without any insight into interpreting the data.
The environmentalist looks at it, and doesn't understand what it's actually showing.
The aviation consultant looks at it and accurately relays exactly what it was intended to represent, with some limited interpretation.
The data visualization expert understands the data, and provides some suggestions for allowing this format to provide more information.
The philosopher is insane
So the intended interpretation of the story is that we each see what we want to see in information. The meta-interpretation is that I should only hire an expert in an appropriate field to analyze my data.
I'm going to connect some of the dots provided in the summary, perhaps a little too liberally, but it sounds like the Chinese government ruled in favor of writers that are popular for criticizing the Chinese government.
While I'm not their biggest fan, this is a pretty big step for them.
Granted, it's not like they were explicitly ruling in favor of that so much as not wanting American corporations profiting off of things that are legitimately original Chinese works...ie, don't exploit our people unless you pay them for it.
While the idea may have been around since the 90s, the implementation is clearly better. I watch the video you provided in the link, and the individual on that looked like walking was unnatural. He also had to hold on in order to move. In the videos that Virtuix provides (particularly the movement demo without a game attached), it shows that the user is moving significantly more naturally. Certainly, walking still looks a little more rigid than it would normally be, but it's a heck of a lot more natural than in the video you provided.
I just don't want this to be regarded as somehow inferior because they are using ideas that were already around. That's generally how progress works.
Slashdot Mirror
The summary specifically calls out physical, intellectual, and emotional. Are they suggesting that in 50 years you'll be able to get a chip implanted because you're depressed? Or stupid? Physical issues are being improved upon markedly. But seriously - fixing perceived issues in how people think seems just wrong. Fixing perceived issues with how people feel doubly so. If this were possible, we'd be squarely in sci-fi AI-controlled-human territory.
Irrational numbers are supernatural.
While I agree that there would be considerable benefit from this, I think that there's a whole mess of tinfoil hat issues here. Don't get me wrong, I fully believe that my government is spying on me (not specifically me, but in general). Giving them all the hardware means no more negotiating with service providers (at any level).
No more sneaking around what is or isn't okay. "This is my hardware, and to protect my hardware, I have to install this additional monitoring." There's the whole "If you aren't doing anything wrong..." argument, but let's not assume that giving the government the "means of distribution" is going to be all sunshine and puppy dogs.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not happy that service providers can do whatever they want, but at least then the competition drives them to all be the best (well, we're assuming that "best" and "most profitable" are related). The government has no such goal. It's possible this would even backfire completely and the government would let it languish - they've got dial-up, so our job is done, etc.
If there's anything I've learned from video games, it's that this is a bad idea.
The answer is two.
The cake is a lie.
The person quoted in the summary appears to have a relatively solid grasp on how to go about being safe on the internet. By that same metric, a large percentage of Slashdot could also be just fine using XP. The problem is that everyone _else_ keeps using XP, and they _don't_ have that same skillset.
I'm happy that Microsoft finally pulled the plug. My goal is that things get bad enough for the small office that I provide support to on a volunteer basis requires them to upgrade. I've had to re-image a bunch of computers already this year because people click things, and companies are taking XP drivers away. Soon enough, I'll be able to say "Too bad, you have to upgrade this time".
If this is a serious commercial adjustment to the organism then I would be working on increasing alcohol tolerance.
If that is a thing you can adjust, I think there are organisms other than the yeast that would be better served by that improvement.
So, no super speed, or strength, or other abilities, no synthesizer music.
For our $6,000,000, all we get is a "yeast endowed with special properties other yeasts don't have"? This will not make a compelling television drama. Perhaps a bland sitcom, but not much more.
Her executives are tutored in techniques like “responsibility transfer” [...] and “rewriting reality,” which involves undoing the anguish of a painful experience by coming up with alternative scenarios that transform the event from distressing to excusable.
When this happens, think of the convenience! All you'll need to do is look at the nearest camera and give a thumbs up, and Facebook will automatically mark that you Liked [whatever you're standing near].
Two people could become friends by finding the nearest Big Brother station and doing a thumbs up together.
One of (many) problems will be how they contextualize all that data. You know, this started as a joke, but seriously, if Facebook had a feed of this kind of data, it would be interesting to see the hypothetical profile they build based on what they would see an individual near vs. what they claim to like on their public page.
If your children hasn't seen enough porn already, I pity both you and your offspring
I've considered all kinds of snarky ways to respond to this, but I have this sinking feeling that the context would be lost, and all people would remember is my comment about how much pornography I force my kids to watch while educating them about quality and relevance.
Oh, crap.
Just so we're clear - the only choices for a successor are those who are either misguided or ignorant?
What about other wholly valid choices, like malicious, insane, or sadistic? I mean, I understand that "brilliant grasp of what consumers desire and need" is probably right out, but we shouldn't limit the field where unsuitable choices are concerned.
I've done this as well - but I don't like effectively misleading management by saying that we need to do X in order to achieve what is only a loosely related Y. Yes, X would make Y easier, or improve Z and W, but it isn't truly essential.
That's not to say things are entirely bad. I've also had management see the true value of some stuff that isn't technically being requested at that very moment, and push things upwards by tying the work to something else in just this manner.
I guess the moral is that I don't want to mislead project owners, but I'm okay if my boss does it for me?
This.
And not just bug hunts. I have a laundry list of things that need to be refactored, but every time we think we might have a chance to do so, project management decides something else is more important. We have people complaining about things being slow, but when told that we need to spend time to make it faster, we instead get directed at new features or, worse, tweaks for the sake of a single non-representative customer that happens to have the ear of the project owner.
This Google insider obviously doesn't understand the problem.
I did a Google search for "google", and the Google homepage showed up 7th on the list (under some news articles and links to Maps and Analytics). Clearly Google doesn't know what they're doing, and needs to use better SEO so that Google will rank them higher.
The bottom line is - if Google showed up higher in the Google search results, more people would use Google.
Forgive the puerility, but... Hot golden rods?
And even if they did...what's the value? Please explain to me if I'm missing something, but if I can't decrypt it, then my having a copy is just to protect his "insurance policy", in which case I'm aiding and abetting. I assume additional risk with zero potential benefit, except perhaps helping "stick it to the corporate blah blah blah"?
I have a Scooba (Roomba for mopping). If its ability to navigate is an example of the "Autonomous Navigation" described in the summary...well, it's not particularly reassuring about the future of telepresence.
I initially misread the headline as "Cemetery impacts..." and assumed that this was going to be a nice discussion of zombies and/or how to be successful with necromancy.
Unfortunately, once again, it's only a discussion of how to set up abiogenesis.
So, let me get this straight...
The artist looks at it and sees art, without any insight into interpreting the data.
The environmentalist looks at it, and doesn't understand what it's actually showing.
The aviation consultant looks at it and accurately relays exactly what it was intended to represent, with some limited interpretation.
The data visualization expert understands the data, and provides some suggestions for allowing this format to provide more information.
The philosopher is insane
So the intended interpretation of the story is that we each see what we want to see in information. The meta-interpretation is that I should only hire an expert in an appropriate field to analyze my data.
Let me just say that they are doing a horrible job at antialiasing. I looked at those pictures, and there's jaggies all over.
I'm going to connect some of the dots provided in the summary, perhaps a little too liberally, but it sounds like the Chinese government ruled in favor of writers that are popular for criticizing the Chinese government.
While I'm not their biggest fan, this is a pretty big step for them.
Granted, it's not like they were explicitly ruling in favor of that so much as not wanting American corporations profiting off of things that are legitimately original Chinese works...ie, don't exploit our people unless you pay them for it.
War is the ultimate FPS. But that's the most expensive version of all.
Resetting at the end of a match is also significantly more difficult.
While the idea may have been around since the 90s, the implementation is clearly better. I watch the video you provided in the link, and the individual on that looked like walking was unnatural. He also had to hold on in order to move. In the videos that Virtuix provides (particularly the movement demo without a game attached), it shows that the user is moving significantly more naturally. Certainly, walking still looks a little more rigid than it would normally be, but it's a heck of a lot more natural than in the video you provided.
I just don't want this to be regarded as somehow inferior because they are using ideas that were already around. That's generally how progress works.