351–360 of 395 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sometimes people learn new words, other times keeping old words (usually modified) works better. To take your example, in Turkish the word for vacuum cleaner literally translates as "electric broom", and cell phones are commonly called "cep" which actually translates as "pocket". Or consider the British who still use electric torches (that's a flashlight for all you non-Brits).
and just about everyone says "hoover" not vacuum cleaner I bet it would take along time for most people asked "how does a vacuum cleaner work?" to use the word vacuum, apart from as a name for the object.
But yeah, I wouldn't say "vacuum" as a method of action unless you really drilled down. (Something about "pump" and "sucking", but I'd have to think for a bit to get to the actual physical "vacuum" aspect of it.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of Google Glass's concept video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5R1snVxGNVs I think Google over-promised initially which lead to many being underwhelmed with Glass. I hope Microsoft isn't making the same mistake here.
The biggest mistake Google made was giving Google Glass to Robert Scobel. http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/google-glass-2-0-eight-things-addre... "7. On that note, don't give one to Robert Scoble" It's not that Google Glass intrinsically makes you look like a narcissistic douchebag, it's that the first people to show them off were narcissistic douchebags, posing with their smug self important "look at me I want your attentio…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If you pause at 9 seconds in and check out the rig they're using to film the feed where the virtual objects are visible, it looks as though they are using the same lenses that are on the goggles to display the virtual objects in front of what the camera is recording. So I would bet that what we are seeing in the video is exactly what the user is seeing and not something added on the fly by other means.
Nope. Those lenses are above the camera's main lenses. Whatever those circles do, they are not generating the images for the video. Plus, only one would be needed for that - the camera has only one "eye".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They added the third chip, besides CPU and GPU, they call it HPU (holographic processing unit), which could speed things considerably. If they hooked it directly to ccd then they could really grok terabytes of data on battery.
Magic is not possible. Whatever the HPU does is still constrained by physics. They can't explain away the engineering problem with an invented new name for a device we know nothing about except that it defies the laws of physics WRT computation.
So noting they have described defies the laws of physics.
I'm so excited to see this. I cannot wait to try one of these on for the first time. I'm going to bet writing apps for this kit will be a lot of fun . And all the C# .NET developers can say again, thank you Microsoft since they have committed to one platform, one store, all device types. I think it will be a while yet before there are thousands of developers working on this, but it will grow exponentially for a while…
Seems like a strong use-case but how will they render people on the call if participants are wearing a headset?
I tuned out when I read this: "Sensors flood the device with terabytes of data every second, all managed with an onboard CPU, GPU and first-of-its-kind HPU (holographic processing unit)." I'm sorry, but there is no wearable device which can handle terabytes of data per second. Heck, my brand new Haswell has a peak memory bandwidth of 17GB/s; even to the L1 cache, its theoretical max is 700GB/s. This sounds like a puf…
They probably confused that with GB. Not sure which sensors would even put out Terabytes per second. Let's assume they have a brand new high dynamic range RGB-D camera that has 32 bits per channel at 60 Hz. To reach 1 TB/s that camera would have to have approx. 1 Gigapixel. --> Not very likely.
Completely understandable, given the fact that Wired Magazine is after all, pretty new to all this computing and technology business ... /s
I can't imagine any (tech-savvy) editor proofreading this not going "wait what, terabytes, really??" -- which is then presumably their job to doublecheck.
Think of it like this: can't afford an iphone? There's a Holographic iPhone you can download. Can't afford a fancy big screen TV, there are thousands out there you can download, etc.
This will all depend on the quality / ease of use of Holographic Windows, but I can already see it's the future of computing.