Is the combat strategy of overwhelming opposing forces by sheer numbers no longer workable? I'm sure 5th gen planes would fly virtually unopposed in many scenarios, but wouldn't the hundreds/thousands of cheap disposable drones they could get for the same price would be incredibly difficult to stop too when sent en masse?

Can you elaborate on that? Why does Luxembourg want to rent a fighter jet? What threats is that jet meant to protect against? I get why larger countries need military forces as a defensive measure, but given Luxembourg's scale, it seems like there's no military force short of nuclear weapons that they could raise that would present a deterrent against potential aggressors.

Stepping back from the specifics of this event, the issue of inadvertently pointing recording devices at other is an important hurdle for Google Glass that will need to be addressed.

1) It makes other people uncomfortable, but more importantly:
2) It makes the wearer of Google Glass uncomfortable to be making other people uncomfortable (unless they're an inconsiderate asshole).

This severely restricts the practical uses of Google Glass to only situations where public recording devices are commonly accepted, such as school sporting events, family gatherings, and the like. It's not usable in the many situations where a smartphone is acceptable. This makes Google Glass a very tough sell to the wider public. So to that end:

Sell it with a lens cover. Make the cap a different color than the rest of the frame (preferably an accenting color for fashion, or just plain black.), so that it's obvious that there's no recording going on.

The result is that walking around with an uncapped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smartphone camera held in front of you at face level. Walking around with a capped google glass is equivalent to walking around with a smart phone camera aimed downwards. It's giving a clear signal to others that you're not trying to record them in secrets.

I'm sure some will point out that there are stupid people who don't understand what a lens cap is and that it means they're not being recorded. To that I would say: There are always stupid people, regardless of the situation. But this solution is a cheap and easy fix to address the majority of scenarios. Hope someone at Google picks up on this early enough. (I guess Griffin might do it if Google doesn't. I bet they can't wait to sell you a ton of inane accessories for it).

Well, let's think about it. What if some parent showed up at the swim meet with a camcorder to film their kid's performance? Soccer game? Marching band? Maybe a birthday party? Those people aren't getting punched in the face today, what if they try filming those events on their phone? When they film it on a head-mounted camera, is it punchy-time yet? No, it's fairly well understood by those present why that person brought a recording device and it's accepted that recording devices are likely to show up at these kinds of events.

Now, if someone sat down on the subway in the seat across from you and pointed a camcorder at you (whether or not you can tell it's off), that's clearly unsettling and I could very well imagine that person getting punched in the face. It seems there are already fairly clear social norms around when you can record in public. An etiquette for its use has already been established, and in reports from those using the explorer models, I'm already starting to see examples where the writer felt uncomfortable putting on Glass in places like the aforementioned subway. Word about how to recognize the appropriate etiquette will spread in time, and the usage will eventually follow (and of course we'll have people with bad behavior too, much like smartphone creep shots today). Overall, I'm not exactly in a panic about this technology. I'm also not terribly concerned about using Glass to record my kid doing things because the only time I'd take out the Glasses is in typical recording situations.

Like most first-gen hardware, it's going to be a rough experience. Doing the limited release they way they have was a good idea.

In the meantime, I think the most compelling part of Google Glass is the first-person recording. There are other wearable cameras of course, but they typically record from over-the-head views. It seems like Google Glass is a unique video recorder for parents.

  Like that saying: "The best camera is the one you have with you" nearly all of the pictures and video of my son are from my phone. Our family's actual camera stopped being used after we got smartphones last year. One of the most annoying problems with the phone is that I have to position the phone, and aim the phone to record moments with my son that I want to remember later. That means I have to choose 1) between recording the moment so that my wife and I can remember it for years, or 2) watching the moment directly instead of watching it through a fucking phone. With Google Glass, I get to see the moment directly, while also getting a first-person recording for later. Plus I wouldn't have to hold it while I'm waiting for the right time to start the video or take a picture, it's ready to go.

If a consumer version of google glass comes out that isn't insanely expensive, even if was garbage for everything else, I might still buy one to just to record special events.

Here you go:

http://gigaom.com/2014/01/05/google-glass-prescription-lens-option/

It ain't cheap, but it's there.

I looked at the image gallery, it's actually 8 rotors.

I think that's mainly because that'd be someone else's platform. These guys can't sell it.

Looks like they're trying to make a very small helicopter, with a very small overhead outline to avoid getting blades stuck on things when they land, and when they drive in farther to the position of the wounded.

Does anyone know if folding blades would have worked just as well as using 6 smaller rotors? What is the trade-off in reliability & performance between folding blades vs. multiple small rotors?

To put it in perspective, game consoles are sustained entirely by the limited market of gamers. "Casual" gaming was not even seen as a market segment until fairly recently with the rise of mobile gaming and the Wii. Until the PS2, game consoles had no purpose other than playing games either.

I agree there are going to be significant hurdles to overcome in achieving the economies of scale needed to push this on a mass-market basis. But they're on the appropriate path by drumming up core development support for the Oculus Rift. They can't skip the initial step of getting developer support, because they need to show the world a fully realized "vertical slice" of gaming in VR as a working solution, so that people can see the incremental benefits over gaming on a lighted square/rectangle. It's potentially a very significant benefit, comparable to the step up from 480i resolutions to 720p resolution. This can unlock sales to niche PC gamers who can afford the expensive add-on, and are willing to endure technical hurdles. It'll flounder at this level for some time, but the key goal at this point is proving it out as a distinctive gaming experience.

Once that is established, console manufacturers are now invited to step up to add support for a version of the device, in the same way the PS2 eyetoy led to a PS3 camera add-on and the development of Xbox's competing Kinect add-on...which has finally led to a pack-in camera device on the Xbox One. An incredibly difficult path, but one that has already been successfully navigated by a device that delivered far less on it's vision than the Oculus Rift's prototype.

TL;DR: Carmack is working on Time Warping.

I have to disagree there. I've seen a few interviews with Carmack on this technology and it doesn't seem that he's fighting for "perfection". In the interviews he cites specific numbers he believes are necessary to achieve immersive VR. He's not aiming at an abstract concept of making it better and better, but rather minimum requirements (for example, 20ms input lag).

There have been plenty of VR devices in the past, and they have been huge letdowns because people hear VR and imagine that it's like seeing another reality. But it's never been immersive in the way people envisioned, and part of Carmack's research has been on pinning down the specific factors that drop immersion for these devices. They've already gotten 3D and peripheral vision nailed down pretty early on, but one of the key metrics he's looking for is input lag.

http://oculusrift-blog.com/john-carmacks-message-of-latency/682/

"Virtual reality (VR) is one of the most demanding human-in-the-loop applications from a latency standpoint. The latency between the physical movement of a userâ(TM)s head and updated photons from a head mounted display reaching their eyes is one of the most critical factors in providing a high quality experience. Human sensory systems can detect very small relative delays in parts of the visual or, especially, audio fields, but when absolute delays are below approximately 20 milliseconds they are generally imperceptible. Interactive 3D systems today typically have latencies that are several times that figure, but alternate configurations of the same hardware components can allow that target to be reached." -Carmack

Some highlights from that post:

" A total system latency of 50 milliseconds will feel responsive, but still noticeable laggy.

- 20 milliseconds or less will provide the minimum level of latency deemed acceptable."

"Actions that require simulation state changes, like flipping a switch or firing a weapon, still need to go through the full pipeline for 32 â" 48 milliseconds of latency based on what scan line the result winds up displaying on the screen, and translational information may not be completely faithfully represented below the 16 â" 32 milliseconds of the view bypass rendering, but the critical head orientation feedback can be provided in 2 â" 18 milliseconds on a 60 hz display. In conjunction with low latency sensors and displays, this will generally be perceived as immediate. Continuous time warping opens up the possibility of latencies below 3 milliseconds, which may cross largely unexplored thresholds in human / computer interactivity!"

Part of what made Star Control 2 so special was the sense of discovery. I loved what was in SC2, but I don't want them to slavishly recreate the game (I can replay Ur-quan masters when I want that.)

I wouldn't mind if none of the old races made an appearance so long as they swing for the fences on making creative new races.

Star Control 2 has long been in my top 5 games of all time. It holds up shockingly well after recent replays via Ur-Quan masters.

The universe they painted was amazingly detailed for the resources they had at the time. There was an immense amount of content in those races and their histories, amid a whole galaxy in which to explore and discover. I love the creativity they put into those races, not every race was just another boring palette-change antropomorph. In this regard this game didn't see any real competition until Mass Effect's trilogy (and SC2's races were still more interesting, despite not having time to go into as much dept as in ME1-3).

And the story kept moving on without you! If you don't visit certain parts of the galaxy, or fail to resolve certain quests, whole races can go extinct before you get there. You could watch the spheres of territory shift over time! It gave you a sense that this galaxy was alive, unlike most games where it feels like you're just running through a museum of animatronic exhibits that only move when you come by to trigger them. I could hardly believe it the first time I saw a race just disappear off the starmap.

At it's foundation, a followup to the game doesn't need to have crazy graphics or elaborate new gameplay mechanics just to keep up with the games that had come afterwards. The core gameplay still holds up perfectly well. They mainly need good writers and a polished interface.

I think you're right, I don't know if I'd have the magnanimity to quietly hide while the USA is hunting me down for merely doing the right thing by blowing the whistle on domestic spying.

The US treated him like an enemy after that initial disclosure, I guess it's not that surprising that he retaliated as if the US was his enemy. In a way the US turned on him first.

I've audited valuation reports for used for the acquisitions of tech start-ups on behalf of a few companies. They're typically huge documents 100-200 pages long looking at historical trends, economic factors, strategy & expectations, market comparables, user base, tangle and intangible assets, if applicable, DCFs and the variables factored into that calc, revenue and opex trends/forecasting, evaluation of prior year forecasts vs. actuals. etc. etc. Lots of stuff.

But when it comes down to it, all of the calculations that really swing the valuations are all based on assumptions and judgementally selected variables. I can't prove they're doing it, but it's simple for these valuation consultants to just pick out a number and then just tweak assumptions and valuations until the calculations land on the number they wanted.

It's such a judgemental subject that the auditors can rarely call them out for having blown the valuation unless they're basing the calculations on things that are plainly and factually wrong, the assumptions need to be wildly outlandish to be seriously fought over by auditors, because the auditors argument would also have to be based on assumptions the auditors have chosen. It'd be an argument based on subjective opinion and since the auditors are being paid by the company they're auditing, the auditors only want to push on subjective matters when it's so outrageous the risk of a lawsuit outweighs the benefit of collecting audit fees from that company.