Re: I was almost convinced
"He is definately[sic] a lot more intelligent cunning than a lot of people give him credit for"
FTFY
5770 publicly visible posts • joined 29 May 2007
"Just wait until the UK is out of the EU. If the local business tax take sinks low enough becoming a tax haven will be a viable proposition"
Whilst I do think UK can do quite well for itself outside of EU control, I don't think we want to be starting a trade war.
Even if, like me, you are extremely* motion sensitive, you can earn your VR legs.
As long as you stop when you start to feel queasy or you start to feel hot under the collar you can retry the next day and it will be marginally better. After a couple of weeks it's no problem.
I didn't use my psvr for about a month, and then I got Skyrim. I started to get those hot under the collar feelings again (although not quite as bad as I did when I first got the headset) only took me 2-3 days and it's all good again.
*if I get motion sick irl it can take about four hours for my stomach/head to settle enough to walk around.
I'm having a lot of fun with my PSVR.
Is it perfect? Of course, not, that doesn't stop me enjoying it.
I've played Skyrim on the xb360 and ps4 (flat) and now on PSVR - it's now a totally different game imho.
Once upon a time I'd click through the NPC dialogue to get the quest markers (for example) but now I find I am actually engaging in the world and taking an interest in the people that are in it. They are somehow more real now and I find I am caring. There are people playing it on PSVR who will actually take a seat in an inn and just chill out watching the fire and listening to the bard and the general conversations. Never heard of that happening in the 2d version.
Still, this does raise some interesting ethical questions about what you get up to in VR. It's so much more engaging that repeated anti-social activities that I really can see it having a negative impact on some people's behavior. I'm old and gnarly enough to sense it happening and be aware of the risks - others might just soak it up and let it influence how they act in real life.
Extremely powerful stuff, even at this graphical level. I don't want to see the old 'videogames made my son a killer' thing resurrected to be honest.
How are they addressing the response time for eye tracking?
If I move my eyes 20 degrees to the left my personal optics seem to take a moment to focus - is that enough time for the tracked eye movement to hit the CPU and re-render that area in high resolution in a VR headset?
For example, I'm not really technically current any more, but I can still troubleshoot problems from general principles. I mainly use my skills to help other people do their jobs these days, like a team-builder, or facilitator (sometimes an obstacle de-contructor).
Are those kind of skills tracked? The last team I worked in has suffered a bit of a drop in performance after I left because they don't work as a team any more (especially since new starters didn't get the memo I tended to ram down their brain-stems when they joined the team).
Most of the collected communications, especially in later years after exponential growth of Internet communication volume, has almost surely* been discarded, a large part of it because of legal retention limits, but mostly because automated filters reject it or administrative retention limits based on practical considerations are reached.
Not because it's morally reprehensible then? No, didn't think so.
*Nice bit of optimism there, but in these days of lies within lies it's dangerously naive to even contemplate. Don't forget, people have been referring to NSA activities for years and were ridiculed as 'tin-foil hatters'. Turns out most of those people *underestimated* the extent of the surveillance.
No, apologists for the NSA are going to have to run the same gauntlet now I'm afraid. If you don't think they are slurping everything, forever, in every way possible, then you are crazily naive. See how that works?
No one's forcing you to stay.
You're absolutely right. Much more of the kind of biased rhetoric displayed in this article and this will no longer be a safe space for commentards.
El Reg commentards made this site what it is today, and I daresay we all expect our Vulture to be scathing and vitriolic to all viewpoints equally. I do hope this isn't a sign of things to come, as that will probably signal the demise of our hallowed ground, there's nowhere else quite like it but when it's gone, it's gone.
People playing chicken with self-driving cars, for instance, could already do that. For some reason, they don't though.
They do, just not that often. Also, don't you think that if they *knew* the car would stop that idiots would do it just for shitz and giggles? The reason most idiots don't do this already is that they are still capable of realising that they would probably die as a result, which isn't so much fun as it sounds.
What was wrong with my previous hoot of a poster asking whether you'd punch a woman in the face if you don't get what you want? There's nothing funnier than that!
I thought that was 'punch your ex in the face'? The article didn't say whether there was other information that would lead you to believe this was intended as a Man->Woman infraction. Women have ex's too you know.
Going back and reading what was actually written..
Putting limits and restrictions on what can be said, no mater how repugnant those opinions may be, goes against the entire concept of "Freedom of Speech".
This implies that the free speech in question relates to that of expressing one's own opinion. Whilst it doesn't specifically preclude 'orders' or incitement to commit a crime it's a bit pedantic to pick on that one element and ignore the implied limitations just so you can ignore the rest of what he said.
Mounting evidence, such as? Personally, given the standard of debate on a lot of forums these days, I could frankly support a lot more stifling.
Whilst I'm not going to argue your point on debating standards (because I agree it's woefully low) but I believe that is partly due to people not being able to say what they think and have to caveat everything they say.
I happened across a live studio debate a few months ago and it seemed that the whole audience were of the 'SJW' type - i.e. getting offended on others' behalf, not their own. It was amusing to watch them tie themselves in verbal knots over what they felt they could, or more to the point what they could not, say whilst discussing whatever the issue at hand was.
There was so much caveating going on it was hard to actually discern what the subject being discussed actually was.
The problem is the wording of law invites intolerance of someone else's point of view, it encourages people to 'be insulted' so that they can claim the other party is 'x-ist' or whatever so they can shut them down and not have to address the (often) valid points that are being raised.
I could write 500 words on a worthy subject, and even if I managed to convey constructive ideas and practical means of employing those ideas it would only require one badly worded sentence for the whole thing to be shot down in self-righteous flames and all the valid points would be ignored, even if those very same points could do a lot to help the very people who are flaming.
It is insane.
As for examples, there are too many to list. The first hit I got when I looked was an article from several years ago that mentions a few abuses of this power and why it needs an overhaul. If you want more have a look for yourself.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/jun/06/section-5-harassment-free-speech
I don't know about repealing it, but it could certainly do with a bit of a review and a proper set of guidelines laid out as to what constitutes a hate crime. There appears to be mounting evidence that the law is being used to stifle debate on legitimate issues of the day that concern us all. Unless that was the intended purpose of the law (in which case write that down so we know for sure) then perhaps a bit of tweaking is in order.
You are quite correct in that here in the UK we are Royally screwed.
However, since we lack the means to challenge things there, we can all do our bit to support our US colleagues who at least have a few bricks left in their wall to defend in the hope that it will trickle down to us poor sods.
Of course, in the imagination of Anonymous Coward, those poor people in Al-Qaeda are the real victims.
Are you really that hard of reading? I very much doubt anyone believes 'Al-Qaeda' are innocent victims, the bombing of innocent victims does lead to support of terrorist organisations that are planning attacks on the people who made those victims.
Action - reaction - geddit?
Has anyone tried to tell them that it's their own fault and that they were warned (by the very community that is so well represented here on El Reg).
If you break the public's trust and slurp all the data you can, expect people to get pissed off and take up measures to counteract it. It's human nature - or are they going to legislate against that next?
At the risk of paraphrasing Harmony here, it seems that women are perfectly capable of achieving a high degree of success in the world of IT but don't really want to do so, especially if there are better things they could be doing.
This sounds like a very sensible attitude, but obviously in this day and age completely wrong. The only way to correct it is to force women into a career where you often don't see daylight or anything beyond 3ft away from you that isn't viewed through a screen (at least until you have a 50:50 split).
Seriously, if (in general) women don't *want* to work in IT (and I wouldn't blame them) that doesn't mean that IT is inherently sexist - it's just full of blokes so it looks like it is. Not the same thing :)
Why would non-whites be banned from joining the Union? Whites weren't banned from the Asian society, etc in my Uni.
Ok, didn't realise that would be the case, but I don't suppose you could highlight the reasoning behind Caucasians joining a group identifying with Asian heritage?
Is it logical to assume at this point that Caucasians could also join the Black Society (ot whatever it might be called)?
Well, iirc he didn't publish this memo publicly, someone else did that for him. He published it on an internal memo board that was set up to discuss such things, but it seems that it was being used simply as a honey trap as opposed to a viable debating venue.
Also, sacking someone for telling an uncomfortable truth is morally bankrupt, as is tacitly agreeing with it.
because,REVERSE discrimination
Reverse discrimination is like a Reverse Proxy - it's still discrimination. I sometimes get the feeling the use of the word 'reverse' in this context indicates that it should be treated as a sub-case of discrimination, when it really is at the same level. Not suggesting you were inferring that, just in general.
Thanks for clarifying, I thought you were referring to the processor bugs in particular, but that doesn't change anything I don't suppose.
Totally agree on fixing the most commonly exploitable holes first. Not having a smart phone or social media accounts (apart from this one) I tend to immediately focus on the next line of defense, such as fixing processor bugs etc.
Here's an interesting though exercise: If an individual* cannot remember a password more complex than '123456' etc. what is the statistical likelihood that the data they are carrying will impact anyone other than themselves if the data is compromised.
*All government employees are exempt
And, given that there are easier means of stealing someones life (as discussed earlier), why would you bother?
It used to be the case that we argued against security through obscurity (i.e. it doesn't work) but you seem to be implying that security through ignorance *will* work.
Seriously, you have no idea whether there is a trivial way to exploit these processor bugs or not, and you also have no idea as to whether someone who wants to access your system will bother or not (assuming it is non-trivial).
That kind of approach to security leads to moments of regret later on, guaranteed.