It's not just about latency. If your display is near zero latency and you don't account for head movements, you're going to cause sickness. That is an inevitable consequence of binocular vision. Latency is >10 ms in human photoreceptors, and adaptation to head position is based on vestibular feedback downstream. Latency is not the limitation. Matching self motion to visual motion is the limitation. If these are mismatched, latency won't matter and people will get sick. I applaud the dude for realizing this.
The scope of their search is supposed to be limited. Fruits and vegetables are fine. I think contraband just means stuff like water that they're supposed to catch because it might be weaponized. They seem to be pretty effective at taking people's beverages, but I've never seen them pull out a gun. My guess is that 95% of all weapons, 98% of really deadly poisons, and 99.5% of guns get through.
I'm curious about the 95% figure - is that a guess or are there published estimates? I know diseases killed a lot, and warfare/forced removal killed plenty, but in addition there were many mass suicides of tribes that refused to become slaves. Lots of people killed their own children. The actual number is not known of course, but the occurrence was evidently widespread.
Ah, thanks, I didn't know that, but I think that actually makes it worse. From an academic perspective, that article was 99% rambling drivel. I can't imagine the appeal to anyone at any level of sophistication. I bet the editor thought it sounded smart. And now he's complaining publicly that academic journal articles are poorly written?
When I saw that Steven Pinker was one of the people complaining about academic language. Did he even read his own article about "the dress"? This should be example #1, but at least it was about science, unlike that Flaubert stuff that was provided as the first example.
I'm with you dude. Refined sugar is a drug and schools are the pushers. My kids school hands out sugary crap like candy, but they'd be pissed if I showed up and passed out similarly harmful drugs.
Not all scientists rigorously adhere to the scientific method. That doesn’t invalidate it as part of a systematic method of discovery. Scientific inquiry is systematic even if not all scientists always adhere to any specific system. Astrologers have believed in their predictions for centuries and have made many efforts to confirm these predictions with data. During that time, there were arguments about whether it was a science. The system to make and test predictions was there. It’s well documented. However the predictions were not successful as those of Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, etc., probably because living breathing humans and their behavior are too complex and unpredictable to be shoehorned into some deterministic equation.
Sure there isn't one such system, and sure these systems don't have predictive power. But the systems exist, and astrologers use systems to guide predictions. Thus I would call it systematic. Scientists in the same field and in the same lab have different individual systems for collecting and analyzing data. Their work is no less systematic. There are always more controls to do. Checking every variable under the sun is not possible. But your description of economics is spot on: it's mostly collecting money from dupes and tailoring the usual vague stuff to a person's expectations. Hey, it works.
http://www.upi.com/Science_New...https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
Not systematic or not empirical? There is a system by which Astrologers make predictions. These predictions can be validated against data. That is the empirical part. Astrologers themselves may not have done this to everyone's satisfaction, but the scientific world has now done this many times over. Major world bodies have concluded that these predictions are no better than chance. Predictive power distinguishes astrology from science, not methodology.
Astrology is a systematic, empirical study of the relationship between the alignment of planetary bodies and the observable traits and behavior of humans. But I wouldn't call astrology a science because its predictive power is limited.
Yes, maybe someone will chime in with some findings from economics that are repeatable? The one that pops into my head is the collapse of fiat currency systems with a half-life of ~40 years.
Cats will be exempt from all such fines. At least in LA. Cats can spread their filthy disease turds on your porch every day, and there's not a thing that you can do about it legally.
I would argue that this is the classical expectation of a trade school, and that college should encourage critical thinking. This unfortunately does not appear to be the current trend.
A look into the history of central banking is exactly the kind of thing that could be introduced into a class about ignorance. It might contrast the web page of NY Fed with the book The Creature from Jekyll Island. It might explain the difference between fractional reserve banking and central banking, and recall that (despite Biddle's best efforts of economic terrorism) nothing terrible happened when Andrew Jackson killed a central bank. It might end with LIBOR fixing, god's work, and the half life of economies that convert from hard currency to a system of fiat currency. Instead, central bankers depend on the public's ignorance of exactly how much is being stolen, and their fear of tanks in the streets.
However, “more work needs to be done” often seems more like a disclaimer than an actual admission of the current state of knowledge. For example, author writes paper about neural networks, author assumes synapses are simple linear devices, author emphasizes importance of work, author notes that more should be done to undertand how brains work. But the proposed work to be done is not an admission that the author’s model assumptions violate everything we know about synapses. The actual level of Ignorance is not acknowledged, but instead modesty is falsely implied by the authors’ ignorance with respect to a lofty goal, such as curing mental illness or evolving into pure energy. Make no mistake - science papers in many fields convey an inflated sense of understanding, and grant money often follows outrageous claims of truth or significance.
Is this really the expectation of undergrads now, that the goal of the classes is to fill in the already missing information that students don't know? If so, then the point would be to introduce and expand a third possibility, namely that some things are worth thinking about, but can’t be neatly classified as facts that are not yet known to students.
Slashdot Mirror
this is wrong. google flicker fusion frequency.
You want to shine lasers into people's eyes??
It's not just about latency. If your display is near zero latency and you don't account for head movements, you're going to cause sickness. That is an inevitable consequence of binocular vision. Latency is >10 ms in human photoreceptors, and adaptation to head position is based on vestibular feedback downstream. Latency is not the limitation. Matching self motion to visual motion is the limitation. If these are mismatched, latency won't matter and people will get sick. I applaud the dude for realizing this.
The scope of their search is supposed to be limited. Fruits and vegetables are fine. I think contraband just means stuff like water that they're supposed to catch because it might be weaponized. They seem to be pretty effective at taking people's beverages, but I've never seen them pull out a gun. My guess is that 95% of all weapons, 98% of really deadly poisons, and 99.5% of guns get through.
I'm curious about the 95% figure - is that a guess or are there published estimates? I know diseases killed a lot, and warfare/forced removal killed plenty, but in addition there were many mass suicides of tribes that refused to become slaves. Lots of people killed their own children. The actual number is not known of course, but the occurrence was evidently widespread.
Ah, thanks, I didn't know that, but I think that actually makes it worse. From an academic perspective, that article was 99% rambling drivel. I can't imagine the appeal to anyone at any level of sophistication. I bet the editor thought it sounded smart. And now he's complaining publicly that academic journal articles are poorly written?
When I saw that Steven Pinker was one of the people complaining about academic language. Did he even read his own article about "the dress"? This should be example #1, but at least it was about science, unlike that Flaubert stuff that was provided as the first example.
I'm with you dude. Refined sugar is a drug and schools are the pushers. My kids school hands out sugary crap like candy, but they'd be pissed if I showed up and passed out similarly harmful drugs.
Also that system is the envy of a lot of people in India and China, and they'll burn a lot of coal to achieve something similar.
LOL willworkforbees
Not all scientists rigorously adhere to the scientific method. That doesn’t invalidate it as part of a systematic method of discovery. Scientific inquiry is systematic even if not all scientists always adhere to any specific system. Astrologers have believed in their predictions for centuries and have made many efforts to confirm these predictions with data. During that time, there were arguments about whether it was a science. The system to make and test predictions was there. It’s well documented. However the predictions were not successful as those of Brahe, Kepler, Copernicus, Newton, etc., probably because living breathing humans and their behavior are too complex and unpredictable to be shoehorned into some deterministic equation.
Sure there isn't one such system, and sure these systems don't have predictive power. But the systems exist, and astrologers use systems to guide predictions. Thus I would call it systematic. Scientists in the same field and in the same lab have different individual systems for collecting and analyzing data. Their work is no less systematic. There are always more controls to do. Checking every variable under the sun is not possible. But your description of economics is spot on: it's mostly collecting money from dupes and tailoring the usual vague stuff to a person's expectations. Hey, it works. http://www.upi.com/Science_New... https://www.wsws.org/en/articl...
Not systematic or not empirical? There is a system by which Astrologers make predictions. These predictions can be validated against data. That is the empirical part. Astrologers themselves may not have done this to everyone's satisfaction, but the scientific world has now done this many times over. Major world bodies have concluded that these predictions are no better than chance. Predictive power distinguishes astrology from science, not methodology.
Astrology is a systematic, empirical study of the relationship between the alignment of planetary bodies and the observable traits and behavior of humans. But I wouldn't call astrology a science because its predictive power is limited.
Yes, maybe someone will chime in with some findings from economics that are repeatable? The one that pops into my head is the collapse of fiat currency systems with a half-life of ~40 years.
Distribution of bets on players
The issue is probably not foreign vs non-foreign. I think ZeroHedge probably gets it right: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/...
What makes you think that bacon is bad food?
They probably drink too much Coke.
Cats will be exempt from all such fines. At least in LA. Cats can spread their filthy disease turds on your porch every day, and there's not a thing that you can do about it legally.
I would argue that this is the classical expectation of a trade school, and that college should encourage critical thinking. This unfortunately does not appear to be the current trend.
A look into the history of central banking is exactly the kind of thing that could be introduced into a class about ignorance. It might contrast the web page of NY Fed with the book The Creature from Jekyll Island. It might explain the difference between fractional reserve banking and central banking, and recall that (despite Biddle's best efforts of economic terrorism) nothing terrible happened when Andrew Jackson killed a central bank. It might end with LIBOR fixing, god's work, and the half life of economies that convert from hard currency to a system of fiat currency. Instead, central bankers depend on the public's ignorance of exactly how much is being stolen, and their fear of tanks in the streets.
However, “more work needs to be done” often seems more like a disclaimer than an actual admission of the current state of knowledge. For example, author writes paper about neural networks, author assumes synapses are simple linear devices, author emphasizes importance of work, author notes that more should be done to undertand how brains work. But the proposed work to be done is not an admission that the author’s model assumptions violate everything we know about synapses. The actual level of Ignorance is not acknowledged, but instead modesty is falsely implied by the authors’ ignorance with respect to a lofty goal, such as curing mental illness or evolving into pure energy. Make no mistake - science papers in many fields convey an inflated sense of understanding, and grant money often follows outrageous claims of truth or significance.
Half of all doctors may be below average, but 68% are still above the median when it comes to recognizing a line of bullshit ;)
Is this really the expectation of undergrads now, that the goal of the classes is to fill in the already missing information that students don't know? If so, then the point would be to introduce and expand a third possibility, namely that some things are worth thinking about, but can’t be neatly classified as facts that are not yet known to students.