Perhaps for gaming, but I see augmented reality's main use in replacing TVs, projectors, monitors, displays, phones. I think VR is for gaming, I think AR will be one of the biggest productivity tools ever created.
Pokemon Go isn't real AR though, it's just a phone app that uses the device's camera. You need dedicated hardware to do real AR. I'm withholding judgment until I see that.
It mixes a virtual world with the real world; thus augmenting the real world. I would argue that a fine grain occlusion (individual pixels) vs coarse grain (movable display) isn't that big of a difference with immersion. Consider that we are immersed with our phones quite a bit already.
In addition the lack of 3D isn't that big of a deal given the brain fills in the details with other cues. E.g. People that go blind in one eye can adjust quite well to the lack of 3D.
I personally would love a HUD for my sporting activities; e.g. Skully. But my phone is perfectly fine as a daily driver.
I second your statement. The EU is another attempt at a global power structure that has been going on since people were people. It's most recognizably German, and once the realities of governing a superstate are take into account, this was how I imagine a post WWI German victory to look.
Warefare has always been largely economic. It's what you are fighting for, it's how you win. See Sun Tzus Art of War for an early example of military focus.
Because of the well known destructive nature of war; more wars have been fought to prevent future wars than have not. E.g. The war to end all wars (WWI)
The EU was intended to cause the economic and political crisis we are seeing. A shared currency among such different exonomies is fatally flawed and requires a superstate solution - which was actual goal. Citizens would not knowingly vote for this, but as democracy in Europe is seen as a war risk, it is considered proper to suppress it. Of course this effort to prevent future wars will inevitably lead to a future war. Thus, I consider the break up of the EU as the only path to preventing war. Either way we're entering interesting times.
The parent comment does not make an argument. It makes a set of unsupported statements about the intent of the EU.
"Democracy in Europe is seen as a war risk" is not an argument. By whom is it seen as a war risk? What are your sources for this? Are you going to attribute this to generic "elites" without being specific?
I think you have your parents mixed up. Assuming this was for me; I walked you through the logic and am in total agreement that a large part of the rational for the EU was to prevent war in Europe.
My case is that the EU is undemocratic. Therefore when the these two are conflated the resulting inverse is democracy is a war risk. I gave the case of my pro EU German friends but I know many others.
A counter argument would be that the EU is democratic but no one is making that.
Of course America with its democracy exporting foreign policy gives the rational that democracies don't go to war. I understand why the idea that democracy is a war risk is so foreign. (Assuming you're also American)
I'm pro democracy and anti-war and I believe the EU, despite its intentions, is the cause of circumstances that will lead to war. The definition of irony. Already we can see the rise of openly fascist parties, it won't be long until they start winning elections.
No, you've not laid out the logic by which that statement follows from the others.
> America with its democracy exporting foreign policy gives the rational that democracies don't go to war.
I'd actually argue quite a lot with this: the US does not export democracy, it exports capitalism and calls it democracy. It's quite happy to overthrow democratic socialist governments.
Really the key factor is that trading partners don't go to war, because then it's unprofitable and/or they don't have enough independent infrastructure to survive. You can't go to war with your nose to spite your face. This is partly why, despite the bad relations between the EU and Russia and the small war in Ukraine, the gas pipeline remains untouched. They need the money and we need the gas.
And your inference that I'm American is also wrong. I'm an Englishman living in Scotland supporting Scottish independence within the EU. In fact, I spent a lot of time trying to be a "reasonable" Euroskeptic for years, but this year of the referendum I gave up because the unreasonable side has taken over. Yes, the EU is not very democratic and parts of the EU get economically steamrollered. Guess what - this happens within countries too. Greece is to the EU as 80s Liverpool and the "north" was to the Thatcher government: abandoned.
Leaving the EU does not make Europe go away, it doesn't solve any of the economic or social problems, but it does remove a mechanism for resolving them peacefully.
The UK is not very democratic on close inspection either, and all these threats to remove one of the few bits of black-letter constitutional law we do have - ECHR - are really not encouraging.
Once again we are in violent agreement. Trade is the strongest defense against war.
In the same vain, economic sanctions are a prelude to war and in many cases considered an act of war. Which is why the EUs economic sanctions against Russia are troubling. Such sanctions would not be possible without the EU.
I too have many problems with hypocritical US foreign policy.
I did not infer you were American, I assumed for sake of argument in an effort to tailor my response. I then let you know about my assumption so I could be corrected. Which you did, and thank you.
I don't understand what you're trying to refute. I agree with all of your points; EU was started to stop wars, trade and not democracy prevents wars, and the EU is undemocratic. All of these points are inline with the statement that "many people believe that a democratic Europe is a war risk" which is what I thought you were refuting?
I think economic sanctions is a bigger war risk than democracy, but I'm not "many people"
In what way to you think the EU is not democratic? All member states are required to be stable democracies. The governments of members guide policy and the institutions. It has an elected parliament. Most members joined after holding referendums. The only country that has decided to leave did so in a referendum. It's hard to see how it could be very much more democratic.
Mainly the EU is a bureaucracy, so many of it's heads are appointed just like any bureaucracy, but they answer to democratically elected leaders.
I'll defer to the wealth of online information on this topic.
That said even my pro EU friends don't make the claim that the EU is democratic. Usually pointing out that the U.K. and the US are not that democratic either. The U.K. being a monarch with a hereditary House of Lords and the US being a federation (see previous election).
I also hold the view that democracy does not scale well beyond city states and that a federation is preferable so long as the federation has constitutionally limited powers. This way demicracy still dominates the affairs of the citizenry. Unfortunately federations have a habit of extending their powers which is where the political system becomes less democratic. I would argue that the EU has increased their powers over time and the system has become less democratic. I would argue the same rule applies to the US.
It's a detail. They are effectively an advisory body. They can recommend changes to legislation but the Commons can always overrule them.
If you're talking about the Crown estate, it is outside their control and the revenue has been at the disposal of Parliament since the reign of George III. Estimates of the private wealth of the Queen put her at about number 302 in the UK rich list. Hardly a gatekeeper of national wealth. Do you actually know anything at all about the UK's constitutional arrangements?
I was told this by EU loving Germans with the explanation that the Germans, and Europeans, can't be trusted and need a superstate to prevent war. "Never again." Obviously forgetting the US civil war.
It's a natural position that logically falls out when you combine the anti-war rational behind the EU with the undemocracy nature of the EU.
That the EU is undemocratic is in general agreement. If you have evidence to the contrary I'd love to see it.
Clearly, you mean the various internal wars of (among other European superstates) the Holy Roman Empire, which are far more relevant to a European superstate than the US Civil War is.
Not disagreeing... would the Peters principal also apply? Intentionally hired to be incompetent that would also imply malice? Those involved
may have the best intentions, so no malice, and we're back to incompetence. Either way, if I were in charge and I needed someone to fumble it I would have picked her. That mail campaign asking people to self identify for deportation was the most anti Brexit thing I could imagine her doing.
The Peter Principle would imply she was a good home secretary. She was actually kind of a disaster, but spent her days keeping out of the press. It's fairly clear her instincts remain to disclose as little information as possible to the press. It's less clear that's a good idea as PM.
Edit: She was, however, probably the best candidate the party had. Ironically, the Labour Party has at least five people in parliament right now who'd make a better Prime Minister, but a fair few of those aren't even in the shadow cabinet.
You're correct. I read the principal incorrectly. The Peter principal requires that a person is competent before being promoted. The Dilbert principle doesn't apply either as management has too much power. There must be a principle where politically the most incompetent person you promote owes you the biggest favors.
It's a two way street. I had to leave the US as my US tax bill on foreign income exceeded my US income. I would have prefered to stay but I draw the line at paying to work.
Liberals are not very libertarian; especially under Malcolm Turnbull. There is a small strand of libertarianism and that's the Liberal Democratic Party.
Australia has an unsustainable property bubble that has made a large chunk of the middle class very wealthy. This has shifted the culture from self reliance to 'don't rock the boat.' This alone is an anti-innovation tragedy.
The bubble will pop eventually and the taxes will go up. Aus can't print new money and we have an untouchable entitlement culture. If you can't pay the new taxes they will use the firewall to block your site. It's going to be a mess and I wish them the best of luck.
You nailed the entitled thing. I'm a born and bred sand groper .. So .. After quite some time abroad, getting to know the species, my sojourns back home to Australia led me to truly cringe at just how entitled folks are, down under. It was a bit humbling to have been driven off the edge of the continent by the culture, even though the land itself pulled me with much gravity, wave by dune by storm ..
Newtons dabbling in Alchemy made him very sick, so there was definitely a risk there. He also invested and lost his life savings in a speculative stock bubble. The bet that really paid off financially was his occult connections that got him a job as warden of the royal mint where his currency manipulation lead to an increase in demand for coins and made him a huge personal fortune. At least that's what I heard. Happy to be corrected.
The reduction in productivity is not a bug, it's a feature.
Your boss spends a lot of time in meeting justifying why he needs a bigger headcount. Having more productive employees makes his job much harder. Colloquially it's called 'Empire Building'
