520 karma · joined August 12, 2013
That needs to stop but having the best congress money can buy pretty much assures that it won't.
His early work demonstrated potential with contemporary, off the shelf technology along with a visionary template. His growing team is taking it so much further. I consider that kind of talent acquisition and management a form of genius.
I just expect it to be a really tough herd to manage in a collective fashion and for it to get increasingly difficult as time makes room for the inevitable ego expansions and the elbowing for power, influence and credit. But then it also appears that he has placed some very alpha managers at the top of the executive team.
I've got a DK1 and had a whole lot of fun with it despite its laughable resolution but as much as I want to play with the DK2 and follow application development (which is all I'm capable of) I'm going to await the store shelf version. I think. :-)
I do believe there are differential equations involved that make the field at one point dependent on the field at another point after a period of time and that's all that's required.
Unfortunately, because TunnleBear uses it's own client rather than the standard Windows VPN mechanism VPNCheck can't be used with it. While I love your company and the generous touch of humor and whimsy you bring to a normally somber market, I can't live with a product with that gaping a security hole. If and when that's fixed and if the performance is about an order of magnitude better than it was when I tested it a year or so ago I'll be on board in a heartbeat.
It's impact on poverty world wide could be like the potato was to Europe and the Islands. On second thought...
Only one in energy could surpass it.
I sure like your reason on the other hand because it's the other hand.
What I immediately noticed with the Spritz demo was that since I wasn't moving my eyes there was no particular change in transparency in the foveal region once the little beasts settled into place. I found this a much improved situation which indicates that it is not the partial occlusion itself that bothers me but rather the constant changes in it due to moving my eyes about the page.
In brief, I like what this method does for my problem.
If the Everett interpretation of quantum mechanics is correct, and there is no known reason why it couldn't be even if it might always remain untestable, every time there is a quantum level interaction (erroneously called an "observation") the wave function does not collapse at all as in the Copenhagen interpretation but instead remains in the superpostion of all possible outcomes. That whole mess propagates and some of those possibilities interact with some of the possibilities of what is described by the wave function of other quantum interactions ad infinitum. This is called the "many worlds hypothesis." There aren't really many worlds in any usual sense although all the possibilities continue to exist and exercise their influence on every other possibility that has an intersecting causal tree.
The net of all this is that everything that can happen does. It's just our perception that gives the illusion of a single path through the whole schmere.
The philosophical ramifications of that world are enormous. It puts paid once and for all the whole "free will" nonsense but it leaves a certain despondence because it doesn't much matter what you do in terms of the perception you are "experiencing." You do everything you can possibly do and experience all possible joys and sufferings as consequences.
Ever wonder why you continue to exist despite the ridiculous odds of you having survived all the close calls you can remember. Because it's possible and from your perceptual tree you don't see the ones in which you didn't. In my personal case I find this observation the closest thing to a proof of many worlds that I could need to be persuaded of its correctness. It just ain't possible that I'm still here after all this time and all those things that happened yet...
Also there are a nearly infinite number of point's in your past from which you live forever if from the initial state of the universe a path of possibility exists to that state. Whether or not such a path must exist is where it gets hazy for me. It doesn't mean however that any of your descendents from "this" particular perceptual point will necessarily persist ad nauseum even if there were points in the past where they could.
Starting with Stefan Karpinski's first comment.
I quite like it and look forward to all the conceptual issues being settled and a stable version delivered. Lotsa' smart people providing input on that but that's both a blessing and a curse.
To much variety of intrinsic data aggregates for me but they justify that on it being compiled and very performance sensitive. Thus a lot of "you can do x on an A but not y. But if you must y, a B is provided instead.'