And inevitably, if one were to construct such a box the cat would not use it.
533 karma · joined September 19, 2013
The proper functioning of the brain is contingent on far more than its macroscopic structure.
Calling this disorder "psychological" will just lead to its sufferers dismissed as crazy. Anxiety causes deja-vu? Obviously if that was the case it would be much more prevalent. Anxiety is normal, deja-vu isn't.
a) First, for something to be a "toy" it has to be fun. Putting a computer in my mouse is not fun; it's frankly rather boring.
b) It's only a good sign if you (the founder to which Paul is speaking) have a future in mind where your product scales from toy to appliance. There are fundamental problems with this product that prevent it from scaling in such a way. Display connectivity is a big one.
IMO, this whole concept is rendered obsolete by the "computer on a stick" form factor that a few big names have released. By plugging directly into the HDMI port on the display, the highest bandwidth link is physical, and peripherals connect wirelessly.
It's not about efficiency or inefficiency. You can't alone create everything. Food, water, power, maybe. But what about designing something great and complex?
You could argue people would do this for free, but that's not right. A designer isn't an emoting artist seeking to express some particular vision. A designer solves humanity's problems. There's usually lots of things we want to express, but we don't have time to express them all. The way we select the problem to solve is by evaluating the economic potential of it.
In other words, money makes people solve problems other people care about. It's the fitness function of technological evolution.
Can any RF engineers comment on this?
But I'm pretty sure the NSA doesn't care about looking at some random guy's ass.
In the unlikely case that they do need to investigate the ass for national security reasons, they aren't going to disseminate the picture to the world, similar to how they don't disseminate intelligence data.
Which means the ONLY way the public will see the ass-picture is if: a) The ass is of interest to national security AND b) The ass is of such concern to national security it is stored in the NSA's internal ass-database AND c) There exists some kind of ass-Snowden that leaks all the asses in the NSA arsenal.
...why does anyone care about this?
I don't agree with your point about non-immunity. Cultural imprinting works because it leverages the desire that humans have to portray a certain image or belong to a certain group.
As rational humans, we can eliminate the pull of such ads by building our own understanding about the group the ad is appealing to, and how that ad appeals to the group. Equipped with this understanding, we can find far more effective ways than drinking Corona to portray the image of being chill and relaxed.
Alternatively, we can reconsider our willingness to be included in that group. Once we realize the only thing binding Corona drinkers together is their collective vision of some beach, we might realize that there's more interesting people to drink with.
Look at an ad for a product you own (e.g. iPhone) that you perceive as conveying some form of emotion. Now, go use that product.
Do you feel the emotion portrayed in the ad?
To make this more scientific, expand the above test to a few hundred people. Query their emotional state with a survey (or possibly by facial expressions, if that's considered an accurate means of evaluating emotional response). Do this for a number of products, ensuring that boring products (e.g. household cleaning products) are included to rule out emotion generated from the intrinsic properties of the product. Then check for the existence/non-existence of a correlation between the emotion felt and the emotion portrayed.
What the fuck? Only the weakest and most cowardly men negatively react to criticism from women (and other men).
If someone is objectively or logically criticizing you, then they're doing you a huge favor. Thank them, regardless of their gender.
Humans don't just drive for the sake of doing so. They drive because they have the need to do so. Building roads lowers the perceived time cost of driving, so more people drive, and more people drive at the time that is most desirable to do so. In some cases this results in increased congestion, but if the need of the population is met or exceeded, then the result is smooth traffic flow. Even if the bigger road is more congested, it may still have a greater net traffic flow, and that increased flow results in greater economic and societal good.
For example, because of new highway XYZ, I can now work somewhere that was formerly too far a commute.
The problem isn't solved by building smaller roads, it's solved by building even bigger roads, or building roads in a more optimal fashion (selecting a route for a new road that matches the transportation needs of the population).
I don't know if Microsoft is exploring VR applications of the Kinect, but they haven't really done anything with VR at all. Sony has Morpheus, but Microsoft doesn't have anything.
They'll probably just miss out on VR like they missed out on mobile, and then spend billions trying and failing to catch up 4 years from now...
If I'm correct, they've managed to produce a true holographic display. The 3D effect is no longer simulated, but real. The phase and magnitude of the light produced by the display is identical to that which would be produced by a real 3D object.
Article is pretty poor though, so I'm not sure if this is actually what they have.
Just look:
http://www.glaceice.net/uploads/3/9/6/9/3969825/3969289_orig...
Because there's no air bubbles, the ice is perfectly clear. That's not a trivial fact. Humans innately like clear stuff! Just think how unappealing cloudy water is in comparison to clear water. The only exceptions arise from cases where we've learnt from experience that cloudiness is good (e.g. cloudy looking cider has more flavour)
What this means, is that without considering price, almost any person would rather use one of these ice cubes over a normal ice cube. So the potential market is measured in billions of people. Even if (for example) only 0.01% of the population would ever consider spending $325 for 50 ice cubes, that 0.01% is guaranteed to want these ice cubes.
It seems stupid, but it's actually brilliant. The weakness with this sort of model is that it's very easy for competitors to dominate the market. Gläce has established the demand and made ice sexy, but they have no hold on their customers. Someone could come in and sell a perfect ice maker for $200 and crush the pre-made high end ice market completely.
Who cares where your brain is if you can send and receive data somewhere 2000 lightyears in the same time it would take to send and receive data from somewhere 40cm away?
Sadly, even the theory behind such a concept is still in its infancy - and of course it may eventually be proven to be absolutely impossible with the same great certainty with which we've defined the mass of an electron.
1. Killing is a very easy interaction to implement. It's much simpler to make an AI that tries to kill you than one that tries to engage you in meaningful conversation.
2. The intensity of violence compensates for the disassociation that resulted from the interface. In other words, you were just watching the game on the monitor. You didn't real feel "there" like you do with VR. What I find, is when I'm playing violent games with VR, it's less enjoyable and more stressful. Fighting becomes an unpleasant necessity.
I think as the technology progresses, we'll see more games focus much less on violence. Like that Voyager bridge demo for the Oculus Rift. If someone made the whole ship with the same level of detail, and had no people or enemies or violence, I could still spend many hours just walking around and exploring, and I would probably enjoy it more than shooting things.
Using the Oculus Rift (and associated VR technologies like the Leap), I can experience all sorts of amazing things that I've never experienced before. Like fighting aliens for the survival of humanity. Or jumping through floating sky scrapers. And I can create new experiences for others.
Exploration has never been more popular. It's just moved from the spatial to the conceptual.
Even if they can make a hydrogen vehicle with equal, or even slightly greater performance than an electric of the same cost, then they still need to solve the problem of the hydrogen infrastructure. That's really hard. You can generate it on site, but the equipment to do so is expensive and complex.
I think Toyota just doesn't want to compete with Tesla.
I didn't read the whole article (long, information sparse), so I don't know if they came to this conclusion.