That's what happens when you are a man of the world.
Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
Think of Google's search as your type as 1-dimensional suggestion list. I'd like as I type to see around the search bar a matrix of categories: news, videos, documentation, blogs etc. Then as I hover over a category with a mouse I zoom into a matrix of subcategories for that category using the mouse wheel. I zoom out back one level if that's not the branch I'm thinking of.
In addition, I don't want to click until the very end, and maybe not even then. Hovering over a set of results shows me what's at the deeper level, and when I'm looking at a one or a handful of pages that match the criteria as I refine further, it is also shown as a cell. Hovering over it will give me a preview -- from the search engine, not my browser fetching an actual page. Only when I'm certain I want to go there, I'll click.
That would be a search engine of the future. Or, idea #2: make it like google, but when I control-clik on the link for the page it opens a sanitized copy of the page, provided by your server, so I know there are no scripts or malware and crap. And if possible give me that sanitized preview when I hover over the page so if I'm lucky I don't have to click on anything at all.
I know sites wouldn't like it but just saying what I'd like to see that I think is technically possible. Thanks for listening!
I see. I meant he looks more down-to-earth than Romney, i.e. gives an impression that he is less disconnected from the reality of an everyday person's life. Obama has that quality too in my view, possibly even more, but is short on some other "somethings" needed for good leadership.
I actually got that positive impression of Gingrich watching his interview with Ali G heh.
Care to say why you think Gingrich having won would have been awful? I don't know much background but he seemed to me more connected to reality -- more "normal" -- than Romney and so possibly more trustable i.e. a better potential leader, which may be the most important trait in a president. Maybe I'm naive/uninformed or Gingrich was faking it well.
I just realized it doesn't matter if weed "causes" lower grades or if students with lower abilities are attracted to smoking and so on. What matters is the pattern: if you find yourself being at a university and happen to be smoking weed regularly, you are a bit likelier to have lower grades. That is all.
That is, assuming the study is done properly, this one kind of looks so.
This case, the woman who got 20 years for (possibly inducing) miscarriage, the guy who built a fort from cardboard boxes in his yard for his kids and was told by the city to remove it, all in the last few days -- I think they call for this quote from Jack Tramiel (of Commodore) when he asked how he could not hate Germans after having been in Auschwitz:
"You know," he once told me, "it's hard to believe it really happened. But it can happen again. In America. Americans like to make rules, and that scares me. If you have too many rules you get locked in a system. It's the system that says this one dies and that one doesn't, not the people. That's why I don't hate the German people. Individuals, yes. Rules, yes. But not all Germans." He shrugged. "They just obeyed the rules. But that's why we need more Commodores. We need more mavericks, just so the rules don't take over."
It may well be a health risk, but I can't imagine it's #1 or even a distant #2 or in the top 5 either. (My guess is nutrition, amount of physical activity and mental/emotional stress level are top 3, far above all others.) Since it's not a top factor and certainly not an easily fixable one, why mention it? It's wasting everyone's time, including ours as we are posting here as a consequence instead of doing something useful.
Good analogy, and I'd propose another one: social media is like alcohol. If you never go to a bar you may miss some situations where interesting people are met and friendships are made, and if you use it too much... well we know what happens. Also some people are naturally very attracted to it, and some not at all, while some have to force themselves to stay away.
I think it's best to drink the FB booze in very small amounts. Have an account, but don't put anything of value in there, just a couple of pics and a few irrelevant article shares. That gives you access to people without being much giving much information away, or requiring you to engage.
I stopped posting almost anything after I noticed in my daily life I was doing or seeing things and I thought about posting them -- it was taking mental energy away. I still check FB at least 4-5 times a day, and sometimes I see valuable stuff, probably still worth the small exposure to the overall FB toxicity.
Commenters on reddit and elsewhere believe the video is fake. Magic Leap recently came into the spotlight with its recent $540M backing by Google and others, so its success or failure to live up to the expectations could affect consumer's interest in AR."
I'm just curious, is your project or income somehow tied to people watching sponsored content and giving something in return for it (their time or clicks or bandwidth/CPU etc.)? Not saying any of that right or wrong, just wondering if that's related.
Would it help if the VR headset allowed for some Actual Reality to seep through in some controlled way? Couple of ideas come to mind --
1. Have a faint overlay of "AR" with the VR image. Could be that the physical screen is partly transparent somehow so you can see the outside, with a controllable (manual or automatic) transparency.
2. Have a small square patch of AR in your field of view, say in the upper right corner, that your eyes can dart back to when your brain needs some grounding. Kind of like a little plug in the headset that when you remove physically with your hands, you see a hole through which the real world shines through. When it's plugged back, you see a black square in its place. Actually it would be more like a camera shutter -- touch the headset on the side and it opens/closes.
3. Time-shared -- at certain times, auto-deduced or manual, the entire VR quickly fades in into your entire field of view. That would be best if optical and not rendered, so it may be a form of (1) -- unless rendered is fast enough (maybe with direct circuitry from the headset camera to the screen, without going through the PC).
The idea is the very moment you feel uncomfortable you touch the headset (perhaps even command it via EEG) and you see the real world immediately -- without worrying about taking off the headset.
I'm not sure we'll ever find causation in a complex system such as human life, beyond the very simple and obvious. Ie. as someone said it is not clear that there is an arrow of causality from A to B. If B (a person's life) depends on a bajillion other factors, what influence could a single A (sauna) have that could be demonstrated and isolated? Unless A is something obvious like ingesting cyanide.
I think the point of these studies is more like, if something has been done for a long time (eg. sauna in moderation, in Finland) and you enjoy it (perhaps after giving it some time), then it's probably not bad for you.
I think I understand the FAA's position. The precaution to ban all commercial use until a good system is put in place is unfair to roofers but likely prevents some far more wild and daring commercial ventures -- people motivated by money will go a lot further than people motivated by leisure -- that would likely have resulted in damage and injuries or worse. That's the reality of needing laws -- they are bound to be unfair to some but are considered to be beneficial for the society overall.
And IMO had the rules be more lax from the outset and a few bad accidents had happened, it would likely have brought bad PR for drones in general (not that they are terribly loved now) and would likely stun the progress in that area for longer.
I'm not a big fan of the current administration but I think being cautious about drones *in this country* is the right thing to do.
I'm not sure more laws will help. The health industry is already under tons of laws like HIPAA and this still happened. I also believe that past some reasonable point, more and more regulations make people who do the actual work in the field (doctors in this case) resentful about their jobs.
I imagine that people who run that much don't do it because science says exercise is good (as if we needed science to know that), they probably enjoy it. My guess is that people who only mildly enjoy running or not much at all but do it because they believe it's good for you are unlikely to run that much.
And btw Science is such a wide umbrella of institutions, organizations and body of knowledge that it makes little sense to talk about it in general. People running particle accelerators and social scientists making phone calls randomly and asking questions are very different beasts.