HN user
This opens a lot of possibilities for genetic manipulation, especially in connection with CRISPR. I imagine the X and Y bases are being kept secret for proprietary reason
This is an interesting article, and its position is a bit surprising, coming from The Weekly Standard. I want to go out and get that Bio now, for sure.
I did not expect myself to be in accord with the list, but really... it's perfect. I read around one third of those and they were all 10/10 for me.
I was confused by that as well. I was under the impression HP made working memristors years ago.
Any idea where HP TRIM, HP Records Manager, Autonomy, Autonomy IDOL & Autonomy Records Manager/CA are landing?
I work for a software company very much like Valve in structure, who has been operating this way since the 70s.
Support still gets done, because when you hire you specifically hire people who love doing support. Those people exist, and they get tremendously emotionally involved in the quality of their work, just like anyone else.
In every department there are people who struggle with the flat hierarchy and free range to work on what you like, who have a strong emotional need to know who is in charge, and to be told what needs doing. Those people struggle, but they are by no means relegated to any one department -- plenty of them are engineers.
I've noticed a number of security-related companies opting against HTTPS for their website.
Does anyone have any idea why that might be the case?
Python has all of the constituent parts of an OO language, save explicit types, but it is never written in an OO style.
Using classes != OO.
Generally, Python programmers treat objects as structs with associated methods, basically the Go model. Python programmers rarely encapsulate at all. At best, they use a bunch of accessors (which is not itself OO). Implementation details are rarely hidden.
That's because dynamically-typed languages, the interpreter, and the Python culture, lend themselves more to exploratory programming, rather than a UML-design, with objects that relate to real-world entities, that are implemented after careful planning.
If you can show me a Python program where objects are really encapsulated, and aren't chock-full of accessors, I'll stand happily corrected.
It acknowledges that some people think it is a problem, but it does not itself make any statement about whether or not it's a problem.
For those of us who believe economic inequality is both good and natural, this is a great rhetorical device for undermining the left -- "in this time of great economic inequality, life is better than it has ever been for the general populace."
A person on the left may use the opposite rhetorical device, "in this time of great economic freedom, people are increasingly poor."
As this is written, there is no way to know which rhetorical device they were using.
Uh oh, this doesn't fit the class-war narrative so no one is going to touch it.
How does it compare to *BSD?
You'll have to take that up with the public at large. We use "internet" to refer to the world wide web. Try to sell someone a computer that has "the internet", but won't do tcp/IP, you'll get punched.
As for the infrastructure, that's a rather more esoteric concern. It needs a distinguishing term.
Maybe they shouldn't be watching six hours of TV a day then.
I ran into this recently on a video chat with my brother, he was trying to pin a mustache on his face but the algorithm couldn't see him. Fortunately, he didn't know why. I don't know how I would've reacted had he understood.
Monarchism and capital enterprise may be similar in their internal hierarchy, outside of some corporate structures, but they are rather unlike monarchies in one very important way.
A capitalist enterprise (outside of a handful of extremely inelastic markets, like defense, catastrophic healthcare and public safety) require that people choose to purchase their product. That is Democratic in nature.
Anarchy is not free of coercion. Fortunately, free markets are not anarchic. Ballot and autocratic are not the only forms of government. Capitalism is itself a form of government -- the left intuits this, but are clouded on the internal forces.
The nature of ballot-organized government, even direct democracy, is less democratic than that of dollar-voting markets.
Ballot government has much more in common with monarchy. Generally -- you're choosing a single person,and that person makes choices ostensibly on your behalf for a number of years. Additionally -- you may get to choose on some issues once in a while, and watch as your choices are undone by the courts and legislature.
Conversely, in dollar voting, everyone is making all of the choices all of the time.
As a result, unencumbered capitalism is a purer form of direct democracy, which measurably produces a more responsive form of government.
It allows the public to vote directly for specific desires, producing an organizing impetus which is more respondent to the will of the public than any other form of government, even direct democracy.
What the left intuits as misrule by business, is actually the result of the votes of their fellow dollar-voters. It is the wisdom, or folly, of the people.
Poor people, which was exactly my point.
http://www.marketplace.org/2013/11/04/wealth-poverty/income-...
In discussion of economics, 'left' generally means large-scale government intervention in markets, while 'right' means truly free-markets based on the efficient market hypothesis. E.g. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8b/Politica...
There is a lot of confusion -- no doubt. This has to do with the new usage of the term "liberal" to describe Democrats or people on the left, when historically, liberal meant people on the right, like Libertarians or Republicans. As a result, we now describe free-market liberalism as "classical liberalism", to distinguish it from modern "social liberalism".
To further complicate things, pundits on the left have attempted to associate the uglier side of left politics (namely, fascism) with the right, so you have a lot of people calling neo-nazis "far-right", when in reality, National Socialism was a leftist movement. Hitler was a "liberal", in terms of being a believer in large-scale government intervention in the markets.
Conversely, the USSR was and China is "conservative" in the classical sense. That is, they believe in government intervention in markets, which was called conservatism 100 years ago, and is called liberal today.
Does anyone have a link to his "progressive kristallnact coming"?
One, FDA. Two, litigation/risk.
There are examples of more difficult media which don't get mass-media popular, not because of their quality, but because of their difficulty. These types of works make up part of the 'secret handshake' of the upper class -- it is how they identify each other.
France has the noble, but mistaken, idea that they can force lower and middle class people to take in high culture, and in so doing, will be able to make their country more egalitarian.
Sorry guys, cultural class isn't something you can just legislate away.
The upper classes (culturally, not economically) have spent generations training themselves to be very critical connoisseurs -- you're not going to undo that with some government-funded arthouse flicks and a Netflix tax.
Are you saying that the rest of Europe is less anti-America/anti-Capitalism than France?
That's not just a funny coincidence -- the American left has for decades been slowly allying themselves against the West.
That's why no one on the left batted an eye when Google chose Yuri Kochiyama for their Google Doodle, despite that she said in 2003:
"...I consider Osama bin Laden as one of the people that I admire. To me, he is in the category of Malcolm X, Che Guevara, Patrice Lumumba, Fidel Castro.... I thank Islam for bin Laden. America's greed, aggressiveness, and self-righteous arrogance must be stopped."
They also own a big stake in Tobii, leader in pupil tracking.
Interesting to see them positioning themselves for the future here.
If that were true people with only one eye would be nauseous all of the time.
As I understand it (which I may not) -- this paper (which purports to be the only paper to have tested this effect), says that they test divergence by having the images displayed at various distances to replicate varying levels of divergence.
They see that the closer it is to a realistic vergence/accommodation match the more comfortable the eyes.
However -- it should obviously be easier to tune a 3D image which is at a realistic distance than one which is not.
It seems to me, they may very well just be showing that effect, just showing that it is easier to adjust the illusion to render realistically at distance. This would make perfect sense.
This would then just argue for better tuning.
Wide DOF
"Your brain uses the feedback from the eye muscles to ascertain distance."
Source? I'm under the impression that focus is a brain-first, muscles-second process. If the object was already in focus, I don't think your eyes would mind.
That's a really cool idea.
But 'all' you have to do is track the pupil, and push focus on the object they're looking at. We're already rendering the focal length live in most games, there's no reason we couldn't shift the focal length affording to what the viewer's pupils are pointed at.
Alternatively, they could use a modified biology, where the direction the head is pointing chooses the relative DOF, basically you render a fairly wide depth of field around whatever the head is pointed at.
Anyway, you can get a pretty lifelike experience with just some basic atmospheric perspective. Look at photography with very wide depth of field [1], so everything is in focus simultaneously. You sorta just get used to it, and accept it.
Agreed. I was very VR skeptical until I tried the Vive last month. Now I'm convinced this is around the corner.
"moving images on the screen aroused a physiological feeling of horror in the audience (shots of an onrushing train) or physical nausea (shots taken from a great height or with a swaying camera)" -Jurij Lotman
You could research the Lumiere Brother's films, and probably find some material on the matter pretty easily.
See also, the history of IMAX (70mm film). Originally invented in 1929, named Fox Gradeur,they cancelled the product for decades because it was too realistic, and was making audiences profoundly uncomfortable.
I even recall reading recently that color film and television caused lots of nausea when they first hit the market.
More recently, you may recall that the Blair Witch project was making audiences around the country vomit, because they were not yet accustomed to jerky handheld-style cinema: http://amarillo.com/stories/1999/08/13/usn_LA0713.001.shtml#...