The few people who MIGHT have the capability to look beyond what is written on the drive and see patterns remaining from previous data are most likely the ones who would prefer that the concept remain vague and unproven.
That is one of the most dangerous concepts ever to hit democracy.
If you vote democrat, then industry only has to buy 2 candidates. This is not difficult.
Don't let this retarded meme propagate! It's set up by people who want to keep the status quo to prey on ignorant democrats who don't actually think for themselves.
Although there are a lot of correct answers, I think "Script" is more valuable as a classification of language types rather than how the language is compiled/interpreted/etc.
Common attributes of a modern scripting language: -Entering 2 or 3 lines and running it is as easy as possible and has a useful result. -Has language adaptations specifically for communicating with the OS -More focus on being writable than readable. -Minimal overhead -Many "Features" built into the language -Language features are usually dynamic and adapts to changes rapidly
A modern development language on the other hand: -consistency in the language -less language features, let the libraries do the work. -Being explicit so it's readable and its organization can be understood. -Not into "Elegant", (Elegant tends to be less readable, it's explicit instead) -Controlled language development, slower and more deliberate. -Backwards compatibility is important.
Scripting languages tend to be much more powerful per character. They also often allow features that would devastate large team development such as the ability to modify the global environment and modify "Finished" classes.
You actually want to avoid power in a development language. You want to see every single thing that happens in your class written out in that class file. Typing speed and code is almost completely unimportant (DRY is still CRITICAL, as are small classes... don't think I'm arguing against those!), but the ability to clearly translate a model, and to restrict programmers from unhealthy choices is critical.
They put emotional issues in those bills, like "Ban child murder", then when you vote against it, you are pro killing children.
I don't know that this is the case with this bill. I believe I heard that GWB was actually threatening to veto some other bills critical to the dems if it wasn't passed, and I think democrat party leadership was therefore exerting pressure as well.
Honestly I hate dems as much as republicans. These days I'll vote on a democrat for president, but then every single person, down the line, from judges to school administrators to senators, I vote independent wherever it's possible, Green, Libertarian, heck--for a city/state position I'd probably vote for someone running on a communist ticket before a republicrat.
Java uses a methodology that makes heap allocations perform more like stack allocations.
Also, creating many small objects helps with code maintainability and reuse, significantly. (that's what OO programming is when done correctly)
As you said, C++ discourages that.
So to combine and rephrase what we have said, C++ has this design flaw that makes good OO code difficult to write and slow, Java has corrected that for the most part by simplifying and speeding up areas C++ is not good at that are required for good OO code.
How about assembly? Hand code that and you can beat the PANTS off C, probably a few times better performance unless you really know how to tweak your C code.
Yeah, if you are not programming OO, C is still going to be pretty hard to beat, but I don't think that includes C++. There is a Realtime Java now, not sure how it compares in speed to C, but I don't doubt it'll be pretty close to C++.
The more I look at it, Java's Just in time compiler is just about as fast as C++.
The biggest difference tends to be how you program.
When you really learn to program OO, you tend to create many small objects that outlive the object that created them.
In C++, that would mean running thousands of mallocs a second, and having some other random (arbitrary) object delete them later.
That's not the way to code C++. Since you are constantly required to think of object lifetime, you usually have an object die with the method that created it. When you are doing that, you can put it on the stack instead of allocating it on the heap. Stack allocations tend to be much cheaper because there is no deallocation.
But if you actually coded C++ OO, not caring where objects were destroyed, keeping many more small objects around, etc, your performance would be as bad as Java or worse.
For something that doesn't allocate at all--well a simple test was just created on Cedric's weblog that compared a good algorithm in different languages and C++ couldn't match Java's performance until it was compiled with -O3.
For java, apps just keep getting aster (even for programs that have already been deployed). To increase the speed of a deployed C++ program, you need new hardware.
A VM system CAN BE superior to a compiled one in every way since it can be compiled to exactly the same (or much better) assembly code if the VM determines that would be best. Not sure why this whole speed thing keeps coming up. When I see a Java program written to avoid memory allocation, it tends to perform almost exactly like it's C++ counterpart.
Interesting, so if you add your post to the article's info, you find that in a society of many polygamous families and unmarried violent men (probably a significant number of gay men in there, you'd think) men STILL live longer than in a monogamous society.
What the hell does that say for monogamous society?
Well, along with all the blizzard games (wow, wc & diablo I II and III) and the sims and--well I love this trend.
By the way, if you used to play warcraft III or diablo II, go to blizzard.com/account
You can enter your old PC game serial numbers there and download new binaries for mac or PC directly from Blizzard. CD Copy protection has been removed and you can download as many times as you want (for all your PCs). If you still have one of these games installed, just connecting to battle net will upgrade you and remove the CD requirement.
As always with blizzard products, if you play a lan game (lan Diablo II is still good fun!) you can use a single serial number, but you need unique serials to connect to battle net.
If you are looking for an interesting Team game, check out a map called "DOTA" for Warcraft III. Even if you don't like WC3 at all, DOTA is nothing like it, it's a completely different game that just runs on the WC3 engine, and I'm pretty sure more people play DOTA than every other WC3 map combined.
Just rediscovering some great older games that haven't gotten worse with age and thought I'd share.
The best thing an OS can do is launch an app for you and get the hell out of the way. Instead what we have is A company sustaining itself on injecting unnecessary features into the OS so that it can sell an "Upgrade" on those features... And when you can't sell the upgrade, force it!
I'm actually glad that Microsoft pulled so many drivers into the OS--before they pulled networking in, networking was a royal pain in the ass! Same with serial ports and video drivers... Ideally these should all be OS-independent libraries or modules...
I guess I'm just thinking that the OS itself SHOULD be getting smaller and faster, not the other way around. They should be optimizing loadtimes, reliability and simplicity--adding features and eye-candy is far less important.
I'm hoping they are learning that lesson now. My guess is that MS thought adding features was the only way to allow them to hike their prices again... Even if that was true, it's sounding like it didn't work. Perhaps the next release will be leaner and meaner.
I like your argument. I believe JavaFX, sun's version of "et al" is open source (if not, it certainly will be).
I had thought JavaFX was going to be nearly DOA because of timing, but you make me wonder if it could become the new standard way to deliver multimedia content simply because it's the only one not owned by some company.
Completely changing someone elses' thoughts from a simple conversation.
If you take into your mindset that people are THIS vulnerable to manipulation, it should change your outlook on a lot of things, and probably make you quite a bit more paranoid.
I think you are missing one step. Your arguments are still simply those against a 2-d image. A 3-d image is a completely different problem.
With 2 images of the exact same scene taken from slightly different angles, you have much more information than you have with a single image.
With the two camera angles, you have the data available to calculate the x, y and z coords of each surface you see... You are not simply viewing a flat image as you are with a 2-d camera image.
Given the additional info, you can actually build a 3-d model (The way you described the head/neck, etc).
This process will be somewhat difficult, but with the ability to compare the two pictures of the exact same scene, no longer impossible. In fact, it will be "Generic" meaning that a single software solution will apply to every single pair of adjacent photos.
Therefore my point was that eventually this will be a library. The ability to take 2 images, create a 3-d model of edges for each object in those pictures, strip the skins off and hand the model and skin to an application.
If this can be done in real time, it will change the world (Hence my comment) because with a model and skin, computers can start to really understand the image, not just execute some pre-programmed single-purpose analysis on it like with a 2-d image.
Are you sure you've considered the difference between analyzing a 2-d (single) and 3-d (dual) image, because your description still sounds like you are thinking about breaking down a single image (which is EXACTLY as difficult as you state).
Object recognition can be done in 3d much more easily than 2d, THAT is the point. Your saying that it can't doesn't change the fact that that's what the subject of the article was doing (Assuming you read it).
With 3d, a generic identification of objects is very possible and reliable. There are no more questions about what part of the image is part of what object because you have distance information for every surface, the code that looks at the 2 pictures to draw the 3-d internal image should be simple and the process reliable.
The software wouldn't be hard to write, but AMAZINGLY hardware intensive. But then so is rendering a 2-d image from a 3-d model and camera location like we do now. It's the lack of ability to process this stuff in realtime that currently makes all those things impossible, but like 3-d video cards, a solution will present itself. This is one of those problems that lends itself to multi-core processing.
What leads you to believe that this process is as difficult as parsing objects off a 2d image (which is virtually impossible)? Have you been on a failed project that attempted to do 3-d image recognition or something?
You are exactly right. 2D recognition is extremely difficult--if not impossible. Pretty much like rendering a 2d screen without a 3d model backing it is really difficult. All your points were that doing it in 2d was hard. You were right about every one, doing it in 2d IS hard.
The point of my post was, what if we had a library that took 2 cameras in the real world and changed them into a 3-d model with skins (which is how the article was done). How much easier does it make all these problems. Well, they all become trivial. They go from "NASA" hard to "script kiddie" hard. (Any script kiddie can write a module for quake--that's the difficulty level all these problems would attain.
Reverse-3d has the advantage (over 2-d) that you are comparing 2 pictures, it's more data, but the problem itself of creating an internal 3d model isn't anywhere near as tough as interpreting a 2-d image. Very Processor Intensive, but from a programming point of view, not all that hard (In computers, Hard is mostly how much code do you have to write something, you let the computer take care of the computation unless it requires extreme hardware setups. I think reverse-3d would require some serious hardware, but I'm thinking it can be done on an existing 3d card, or one with some slight design modifications).
To counter just one of your points, Office Monitoring. Since you only store a skin and models, you've got data for where a person is every instance. They are never out of sight--and all you are storing are a wire-frame location (very little storage) and any change to the skin that can't be predicted (Your shirt suddenly turns blue?) Someone showing up somewhere else wearing different clothes wouldn't be possible--you would watch them change, record the difference in the "Skin" and keep following the model. Or if they went into the bathroom where there were no cameras, you have "Skins" and models for everyone currently inside, you do a best match when they come out, differentiate and figure out which one changed. When you find out which one change, you back-flush your data to indicate who that person was.
Two people the exact same height and weight and skin tone and visible birthmarks/tattoos deliberately switching clothes in an unmonitored location would defeat it pretty quickly, obviously, but that wasn't really the point--plus computers are REALLY GOOD at noticing differences once they are stored. If you wanted to compare model movements, you could probably uniquely fingerprint the skins, movements and locations of everyone who entered a grocery store in a day and not fill up a 1TB hard drive (Just storing skins and frame models, remember) and be able to match them up by any parameter, including how they walk (probably as unique as a fingerprint).
Yes, it implies a lot of cameras and a lot of CPU power--but that's a hardware problem, not a "Hard" problem like trying to do all that in 2-d would be.
When the ability to deconstruct a video into a 3-d model & skin (the opposite of what a video card does now) is placed into an open-source API, the possibilities are going to be HUGE (and a little frightening).
Anyone want to post a few ideas? I'll give you a few topics to kick things off:
Change detection (Finding lost objects in a room, seeing boxes left in a government office, where's my remote) Change observation (plant growth, things that change too gradually for us to notice) Creating 3-d models from humans (extracted from old films, walking down the street) Weapon systems (Undetectable lasers blinding targets, Unmanned guns with perfect accuracy) Home interaction (Make a sign with your hand, computer changes the channel, lighting, heat,...) Office monitoring (Exactly where each person is any time just by typing "Where's bill" into your PC)
All things that could be done by any hobbiest/hacker with the right API.
(I assume that to get real-time you could use the massively parallel abilities of a video card, making this stuff run on any hardware...)
Also, just storing models and skins is extremely efficient--You could film a room for years in extremely high resolution and use virtually no storage (almost none except when something or someone new enters the room, then just one new high-def skin)
Uninformed voting causes interesting problems. It's very easy to manipulate uninformed voters. This tends to make the wealthy very happy since they are the ones with the resources to manipulate.
I'd like to try out a system that forced voters to become educated in order to vote. Some system like slashdot that allows voters to compose arguments. If an argument for a particular law has all good votes, it is given weight, if all bad, it is not. If there is a mixed good/bad, it would be necessary to break down the topic. If it is too difficult to understand, replies can clarify and examine it.
Something like this would be much closer to the original "Democracy" where people got up in front of everyone at once to make arguments. Although this is no longer practical in a physical sense, it might not be a bad goal to try for.
I'm not asking for a wholesale replacement of American politics--I'd just like to see someone try something new on a small scale. This republic/capitalism stuff seems to be showing some pretty large cracks.
The theory about spending money locally is that more of it tends to come back to you. It might be spent to improve your local businesses so they lower prices, or their owners might be more likely to buy stuff from you (if you sell anything) because they have more money to spend.
If you can spend $20 on a cable, or spend $45 on the same cable but have the extra $25 go to other local vendors, improving their selection and the taxes improving your schools, it may not be as bad as you think.
If you spend that $25 and it changes hands 4 times, it's worth $100. If in one of those 4 times some winds up back in your pocket, it didn't even cost you $25! If you don't spend it, however, it's worthless.
The first trip through is the game. It's fun. From then on you are kind of reliving the fun. The same way some people might watch reruns of a show when they already know every joke that will come up. It's pretty much the same exact thing as vegging in front of the TV--it's familiar. It's where you park your butt for the evening.
When in that mode, a lot of things change. The game's over, you really should quit, but it's easier not to come up with something better to do--and there is always that crack-addict tickle in the back of your brain that if you can get powerful enough it MIGHT be as fun as it was when you didn't know every nuance of the game (it won't by the way, just like your crack-addict will never get that first high again, but maybe it reminds him of that high a little... maybe that's good enough...).
The sick thing is when people who have already played through it once complain about the "Grind". I don't have the vocabulary to express my level of disgust at this level of self-unawareness.
I still remember being perfectly happy (ecstatic, in fact) listening to AM radio. I probably enjoyed it more than I do CDs now (being younger and new to music).
The thing is, how you decide to appreciate any kind of art or medium is 100% in your head. Video quality is not all that relevant unless you want it to be. If you want it to be or you see yourself as that kind of a person, it can be the only thing that matters. A lot of people have started watching "Nature Shows" lately that they would have never watched before just to ooh and ahh at their new purchase. Strangely, the same people don't "Ooh and Ahh" at 100% pixel perfect nature itself when they are standing right in the middle of it.
The only thing they really "Have" is the application store. It's the only place I know of that is like the app store on the iPhone (the first of that type I ever saw actually) where it combines free and commercial apps, has a single install/remove point, is trivial to use automatically adds it to your menus,...
The thing is, Ubuntu's is at least as good now, so I'm guessing that the only reason they have to stick around is so that some current users can avoid change.
As I've been told when trying to update the family's apps: "Nobody likes change"
Slashdot Mirror
Every article I read these days seems like a joke.
Aren't old people supposed to be terrified of robots? Now the robots are bringing them beer!
Don't trust the pusher robot!
http://lazur.com/the-terrible-secret-of-space
The few people who MIGHT have the capability to look beyond what is written on the drive and see patterns remaining from previous data are most likely the ones who would prefer that the concept remain vague and unproven.
That is one of the most dangerous concepts ever to hit democracy.
If you vote democrat, then industry only has to buy 2 candidates. This is not difficult.
Don't let this retarded meme propagate! It's set up by people who want to keep the status quo to prey on ignorant democrats who don't actually think for themselves.
Although there are a lot of correct answers, I think "Script" is more valuable as a classification of language types rather than how the language is compiled/interpreted/etc.
Common attributes of a modern scripting language:
-Entering 2 or 3 lines and running it is as easy as possible and has a useful result.
-Has language adaptations specifically for communicating with the OS
-More focus on being writable than readable.
-Minimal overhead
-Many "Features" built into the language
-Language features are usually dynamic and adapts to changes rapidly
A modern development language on the other hand:
-consistency in the language
-less language features, let the libraries do the work.
-Being explicit so it's readable and its organization can be understood.
-Not into "Elegant", (Elegant tends to be less readable, it's explicit instead)
-Controlled language development, slower and more deliberate.
-Backwards compatibility is important.
Scripting languages tend to be much more powerful per character. They also often allow features that would devastate large team development such as the ability to modify the global environment and modify "Finished" classes.
You actually want to avoid power in a development language. You want to see every single thing that happens in your class written out in that class file. Typing speed and code is almost completely unimportant (DRY is still CRITICAL, as are small classes... don't think I'm arguing against those!), but the ability to clearly translate a model, and to restrict programmers from unhealthy choices is critical.
They put emotional issues in those bills, like "Ban child murder", then when you vote against it, you are pro killing children.
I don't know that this is the case with this bill. I believe I heard that GWB was actually threatening to veto some other bills critical to the dems if it wasn't passed, and I think democrat party leadership was therefore exerting pressure as well.
Honestly I hate dems as much as republicans. These days I'll vote on a democrat for president, but then every single person, down the line, from judges to school administrators to senators, I vote independent wherever it's possible, Green, Libertarian, heck--for a city/state position I'd probably vote for someone running on a communist ticket before a republicrat.
Java uses a methodology that makes heap allocations perform more like stack allocations.
Also, creating many small objects helps with code maintainability and reuse, significantly. (that's what OO programming is when done correctly)
As you said, C++ discourages that.
So to combine and rephrase what we have said, C++ has this design flaw that makes good OO code difficult to write and slow, Java has corrected that for the most part by simplifying and speeding up areas C++ is not good at that are required for good OO code.
How about assembly? Hand code that and you can beat the PANTS off C, probably a few times better performance unless you really know how to tweak your C code.
Yeah, if you are not programming OO, C is still going to be pretty hard to beat, but I don't think that includes C++. There is a Realtime Java now, not sure how it compares in speed to C, but I don't doubt it'll be pretty close to C++.
The more I look at it, Java's Just in time compiler is just about as fast as C++.
The biggest difference tends to be how you program.
When you really learn to program OO, you tend to create many small objects that outlive the object that created them.
In C++, that would mean running thousands of mallocs a second, and having some other random (arbitrary) object delete them later.
That's not the way to code C++. Since you are constantly required to think of object lifetime, you usually have an object die with the method that created it. When you are doing that, you can put it on the stack instead of allocating it on the heap. Stack allocations tend to be much cheaper because there is no deallocation.
But if you actually coded C++ OO, not caring where objects were destroyed, keeping many more small objects around, etc, your performance would be as bad as Java or worse.
For something that doesn't allocate at all--well a simple test was just created on Cedric's weblog that compared a good algorithm in different languages and C++ couldn't match Java's performance until it was compiled with -O3.
For java, apps just keep getting aster (even for programs that have already been deployed). To increase the speed of a deployed C++ program, you need new hardware.
A VM system CAN BE superior to a compiled one in every way since it can be compiled to exactly the same (or much better) assembly code if the VM determines that would be best. Not sure why this whole speed thing keeps coming up. When I see a Java program written to avoid memory allocation, it tends to perform almost exactly like it's C++ counterpart.
Interesting, so if you add your post to the article's info, you find that in a society of many polygamous families and unmarried violent men (probably a significant number of gay men in there, you'd think) men STILL live longer than in a monogamous society.
What the hell does that say for monogamous society?
Well, along with all the blizzard games (wow, wc & diablo I II and III) and the sims and--well I love this trend.
By the way, if you used to play warcraft III or diablo II, go to blizzard.com/account
You can enter your old PC game serial numbers there and download new binaries for mac or PC directly from Blizzard. CD Copy protection has been removed and you can download as many times as you want (for all your PCs). If you still have one of these games installed, just connecting to battle net will upgrade you and remove the CD requirement.
As always with blizzard products, if you play a lan game (lan Diablo II is still good fun!) you can use a single serial number, but you need unique serials to connect to battle net.
If you are looking for an interesting Team game, check out a map called "DOTA" for Warcraft III. Even if you don't like WC3 at all, DOTA is nothing like it, it's a completely different game that just runs on the WC3 engine, and I'm pretty sure more people play DOTA than every other WC3 map combined.
Just rediscovering some great older games that haven't gotten worse with age and thought I'd share.
I glanced at a few that looked good and saw Mac support in all the ones I looked at.
I love this trend! I'd be even more impressed if they had linux support as well, but anything but windows is fine with me.
Hmm, "Anything But Windows" would make a great replacement for "News for Nerds".
Just because it is, doesn't mean it should be.
The best thing an OS can do is launch an app for you and get the hell out of the way. Instead what we have is A company sustaining itself on injecting unnecessary features into the OS so that it can sell an "Upgrade" on those features... And when you can't sell the upgrade, force it!
I'm actually glad that Microsoft pulled so many drivers into the OS--before they pulled networking in, networking was a royal pain in the ass! Same with serial ports and video drivers... Ideally these should all be OS-independent libraries or modules...
I guess I'm just thinking that the OS itself SHOULD be getting smaller and faster, not the other way around. They should be optimizing loadtimes, reliability and simplicity--adding features and eye-candy is far less important.
I'm hoping they are learning that lesson now. My guess is that MS thought adding features was the only way to allow them to hike their prices again... Even if that was true, it's sounding like it didn't work. Perhaps the next release will be leaner and meaner.
I like your argument. I believe JavaFX, sun's version of "et al" is open source (if not, it certainly will be).
I had thought JavaFX was going to be nearly DOA because of timing, but you make me wonder if it could become the new standard way to deliver multimedia content simply because it's the only one not owned by some company.
I'll pay more attention to it in the meantime.
Reminds me of something I saw a while ago http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=befugtgikMg.
Completely changing someone elses' thoughts from a simple conversation.
If you take into your mindset that people are THIS vulnerable to manipulation, it should change your outlook on a lot of things, and probably make you quite a bit more paranoid.
I think you are missing one step. Your arguments are still simply those against a 2-d image. A 3-d image is a completely different problem.
With 2 images of the exact same scene taken from slightly different angles, you have much more information than you have with a single image.
With the two camera angles, you have the data available to calculate the x, y and z coords of each surface you see... You are not simply viewing a flat image as you are with a 2-d camera image.
Given the additional info, you can actually build a 3-d model (The way you described the head/neck, etc).
This process will be somewhat difficult, but with the ability to compare the two pictures of the exact same scene, no longer impossible. In fact, it will be "Generic" meaning that a single software solution will apply to every single pair of adjacent photos.
Therefore my point was that eventually this will be a library. The ability to take 2 images, create a 3-d model of edges for each object in those pictures, strip the skins off and hand the model and skin to an application.
If this can be done in real time, it will change the world (Hence my comment) because with a model and skin, computers can start to really understand the image, not just execute some pre-programmed single-purpose analysis on it like with a 2-d image.
Are you sure you've considered the difference between analyzing a 2-d (single) and 3-d (dual) image, because your description still sounds like you are thinking about breaking down a single image (which is EXACTLY as difficult as you state).
Strange, I kinda felt the same way.
Object recognition can be done in 3d much more easily than 2d, THAT is the point. Your saying that it can't doesn't change the fact that that's what the subject of the article was doing (Assuming you read it).
With 3d, a generic identification of objects is very possible and reliable. There are no more questions about what part of the image is part of what object because you have distance information for every surface, the code that looks at the 2 pictures to draw the 3-d internal image should be simple and the process reliable.
The software wouldn't be hard to write, but AMAZINGLY hardware intensive. But then so is rendering a 2-d image from a 3-d model and camera location like we do now. It's the lack of ability to process this stuff in realtime that currently makes all those things impossible, but like 3-d video cards, a solution will present itself. This is one of those problems that lends itself to multi-core processing.
What leads you to believe that this process is as difficult as parsing objects off a 2d image (which is virtually impossible)? Have you been on a failed project that attempted to do 3-d image recognition or something?
Fair Dinkum observation
You are exactly right. 2D recognition is extremely difficult--if not impossible. Pretty much like rendering a 2d screen without a 3d model backing it is really difficult. All your points were that doing it in 2d was hard. You were right about every one, doing it in 2d IS hard.
The point of my post was, what if we had a library that took 2 cameras in the real world and changed them into a 3-d model with skins (which is how the article was done). How much easier does it make all these problems. Well, they all become trivial. They go from "NASA" hard to "script kiddie" hard. (Any script kiddie can write a module for quake--that's the difficulty level all these problems would attain.
Reverse-3d has the advantage (over 2-d) that you are comparing 2 pictures, it's more data, but the problem itself of creating an internal 3d model isn't anywhere near as tough as interpreting a 2-d image. Very Processor Intensive, but from a programming point of view, not all that hard (In computers, Hard is mostly how much code do you have to write something, you let the computer take care of the computation unless it requires extreme hardware setups. I think reverse-3d would require some serious hardware, but I'm thinking it can be done on an existing 3d card, or one with some slight design modifications).
To counter just one of your points, Office Monitoring. Since you only store a skin and models, you've got data for where a person is every instance. They are never out of sight--and all you are storing are a wire-frame location (very little storage) and any change to the skin that can't be predicted (Your shirt suddenly turns blue?) Someone showing up somewhere else wearing different clothes wouldn't be possible--you would watch them change, record the difference in the "Skin" and keep following the model. Or if they went into the bathroom where there were no cameras, you have "Skins" and models for everyone currently inside, you do a best match when they come out, differentiate and figure out which one changed. When you find out which one change, you back-flush your data to indicate who that person was.
Two people the exact same height and weight and skin tone and visible birthmarks/tattoos deliberately switching clothes in an unmonitored location would defeat it pretty quickly, obviously, but that wasn't really the point--plus computers are REALLY GOOD at noticing differences once they are stored. If you wanted to compare model movements, you could probably uniquely fingerprint the skins, movements and locations of everyone who entered a grocery store in a day and not fill up a 1TB hard drive (Just storing skins and frame models, remember) and be able to match them up by any parameter, including how they walk (probably as unique as a fingerprint).
Yes, it implies a lot of cameras and a lot of CPU power--but that's a hardware problem, not a "Hard" problem like trying to do all that in 2-d would be.
When the ability to deconstruct a video into a 3-d model & skin (the opposite of what a video card does now) is placed into an open-source API, the possibilities are going to be HUGE (and a little frightening).
Anyone want to post a few ideas? I'll give you a few topics to kick things off:
Change detection (Finding lost objects in a room, seeing boxes left in a government office, where's my remote) ...)
Change observation (plant growth, things that change too gradually for us to notice)
Creating 3-d models from humans (extracted from old films, walking down the street)
Weapon systems (Undetectable lasers blinding targets, Unmanned guns with perfect accuracy)
Home interaction (Make a sign with your hand, computer changes the channel, lighting, heat,
Office monitoring (Exactly where each person is any time just by typing "Where's bill" into your PC)
All things that could be done by any hobbiest/hacker with the right API.
(I assume that to get real-time you could use the massively parallel abilities of a video card, making this stuff run on any hardware...)
Also, just storing models and skins is extremely efficient--You could film a room for years in extremely high resolution and use virtually no storage (almost none except when something or someone new enters the room, then just one new high-def skin)
Other ideas?
And I'm guessing that since you only posted 2 types of people, you are in the former group.
Whoops, I just put myself there too!
Uninformed voting causes interesting problems. It's very easy to manipulate uninformed voters. This tends to make the wealthy very happy since they are the ones with the resources to manipulate.
I'd like to try out a system that forced voters to become educated in order to vote. Some system like slashdot that allows voters to compose arguments. If an argument for a particular law has all good votes, it is given weight, if all bad, it is not. If there is a mixed good/bad, it would be necessary to break down the topic. If it is too difficult to understand, replies can clarify and examine it.
Something like this would be much closer to the original "Democracy" where people got up in front of everyone at once to make arguments. Although this is no longer practical in a physical sense, it might not be a bad goal to try for.
I'm not asking for a wholesale replacement of American politics--I'd just like to see someone try something new on a small scale. This republic/capitalism stuff seems to be showing some pretty large cracks.
The theory about spending money locally is that more of it tends to come back to you. It might be spent to improve your local businesses so they lower prices, or their owners might be more likely to buy stuff from you (if you sell anything) because they have more money to spend.
If you can spend $20 on a cable, or spend $45 on the same cable but have the extra $25 go to other local vendors, improving their selection and the taxes improving your schools, it may not be as bad as you think.
If you spend that $25 and it changes hands 4 times, it's worth $100. If in one of those 4 times some winds up back in your pocket, it didn't even cost you $25! If you don't spend it, however, it's worthless.
The first trip through is the game. It's fun. From then on you are kind of reliving the fun. The same way some people might watch reruns of a show when they already know every joke that will come up. It's pretty much the same exact thing as vegging in front of the TV--it's familiar. It's where you park your butt for the evening.
When in that mode, a lot of things change. The game's over, you really should quit, but it's easier not to come up with something better to do--and there is always that crack-addict tickle in the back of your brain that if you can get powerful enough it MIGHT be as fun as it was when you didn't know every nuance of the game (it won't by the way, just like your crack-addict will never get that first high again, but maybe it reminds him of that high a little... maybe that's good enough...).
The sick thing is when people who have already played through it once complain about the "Grind". I don't have the vocabulary to express my level of disgust at this level of self-unawareness.
I still remember being perfectly happy (ecstatic, in fact) listening to AM radio. I probably enjoyed it more than I do CDs now (being younger and new to music).
The thing is, how you decide to appreciate any kind of art or medium is 100% in your head. Video quality is not all that relevant unless you want it to be. If you want it to be or you see yourself as that kind of a person, it can be the only thing that matters. A lot of people have started watching "Nature Shows" lately that they would have never watched before just to ooh and ahh at their new purchase. Strangely, the same people don't "Ooh and Ahh" at 100% pixel perfect nature itself when they are standing right in the middle of it.
The only thing they really "Have" is the application store. It's the only place I know of that is like the app store on the iPhone (the first of that type I ever saw actually) where it combines free and commercial apps, has a single install/remove point, is trivial to use automatically adds it to your menus, ...
The thing is, Ubuntu's is at least as good now, so I'm guessing that the only reason they have to stick around is so that some current users can avoid change.
As I've been told when trying to update the family's apps: "Nobody likes change"