Comment Re: Counter Logic (Score 3, Insightful) 412
AC got modded down, but is right. The word 'near' is an adjective in this context. It was a miss. What kind? A near miss.
AC got modded down, but is right. The word 'near' is an adjective in this context. It was a miss. What kind? A near miss.
Education is already tax-subsidized. There's no way most of us could afford it if it weren't.
Live remote viewing implies broadcasting, and that raises the question of the intended audience, and of the expected fate of the rifle-operator.
To me, the situations that would "require" live viewing instead of a static file after the fact are one or more of the following:
1. The audience has a real-time tactical interest in the video.
2. The rifle-operator may not be able to provide a static file later (i.e., may be captured or killed.)
3. The rifle-operators or their organization wish to send a real-time message, whose impact would be reduced if it were displayed after the fact.
The only groups I can associate with the above situations are the military (1,2) and terrorists (2,3) with obvious differences in their respective objectives and rules of engagement. One can imagine many benign consumer-oriented situations that might use this technology, but none of them really require live-streaming.
Maybe because of the lack of rifle able to aim from a mile afar and, at the same time, broadcasting it live to the Internet.
No, because they had to enter the building in order to see their targets. They forced one of the employees to surrender her pass-code in order to enter the offices.
I can see where it would be beneficial to some types of training - working on follow through, etc. for shooting skeet, trap, or sporting clays. Or working on control for position shooting matches.
Fair enough, although live-streaming isn't crucial for those applications.
But for the common consumer end user? Pure novelty. And we've been doing similar for a long time - taking pictures or video thru scopes, etc. so it really isn't much new.
It's the live-streaming that gives me pause. Real-time remote viewing might be useful for the military, but in consumer hands it seems like sick voyeurism.
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?
Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.
That's what I was thinking...but with a chilling difference. Imagine if the shooters in the Paris attack had something like this, and chose to shoot their targets at distance, while producing videos they could later put up on YouTube? Not good...
It's worse: the rifle live-streams to the internet. So, even if the attackers don't survive (though they likely will if they're a mile away) their deeds are broadcast already to the world.
That said, the Paris terrorists went inside a building to kill their targets, so long range wasn't really a factor.
Live-streaming of a rifle-scope? That sounds like death-porn. Who's the audience?
And what's next? Cameras installed in the bullets?
Despite the chill this technology gives me, I can see military applications (e.g., real-time mission-monitoring) but its use by consumers makes no sense to me.
Smoke signals? You were lucky.
In my community, we haven't even developed recognisable language. We still communicate using grunting and facial expressions.
And yet you seem more eloquent than many posters on slashdot.
There may be attractive alternatives, but there are no practical alternatives to paper.
I respectfully disagree. Tablets, for example, are an attractive and practical alternative to paper. My point is that they will never kill paper -- in fact, nothing will.
I was hoping some other examples besides paper would be mentioned in this thread. Anyone?
An adjunct proposition to consider is that certain technologies will never disappear, no matter how many attractive alternatives arise.
I'll offer one example right now: paper.
Discuss.
Never seen a disco clam. I do recall a few disco beavers, back in the day...
My guess is that Disco Clam is a character on Spongebob Squarepants.
Whoosh.
Carrier pigeon? What's that? I'm still using Drums.
Drums?! Luxury...
I still use smoke signals. The bandwidth and error rate suck, but they handle the last kilometre better than drums.
IANATP either but, if gravity is nothing but bent spacetime, then gravitons are not needed. I, jumping up and down on earth, am following a straight path through space.
IAAP, although not a specialist in gravitons. However, I can tell you that they are hypothetical bosons that are introduced in theories that attempt to link gravity with quantum mechanics (or quantum chromo-dynamics if you prefer.) They mitigate the gravitational force in a quantum setting in much the same way as photons do for electromagnetism, gluons do for the strong force, and W+, W- and Z bosons do for the weak force.
You can find more information on them here.
There isn't an app for telling you what there isn't an app for. .
How do you know if there's no app to tell you?
I'm beginning to see a Turing stopping-problem here...
Keep in mind: this is [w]hat the compiler tried to do; when you start down this path you are saying "that fancy compiler doesn't know what its doing, I'll do it all myself".
Trying to outsmart a compiler defeats much of the purpose of using one.
-- Kernighan and Plauger, The Elements of Programming Style
With your bare hands?!?
