I guess there are some situations that the universal application of severe quasi-intellectual philosophies like Objectivism don't really work for. Go figure.
Possibly the very exactly same fucking way that game designers have been successfully handling this challenge in games over the past few decades.
Okay, so you're doing level design, say for a shooter. Gears of War. You've got to take cover behind stuff so as not to get annihilated. How do you design that stuff? If you make it too tall you've got some portion of the population that can't see over it, make it too short and you've got people bending at the waist to duck. Make it too thin and you've got someone sticking their arm through it to shoot. Make it too fat and they can just camp out inside it, shielded by the box collider around it.
I get it though. You have to affect frustration to give cause to your desire to be pedantic, because being pedantic is an easier way to seem authoritative than sitting around thinking about a thing for a couple minutes.
Anyways, the examples I gave are just a few small examples of the design differences in VR. Nearly every level of game design is meaningfully different in VR--from how one holds items, to movement (a HUGE open question in VR), to physical acts like throwing, to 3D sound design, to graphical limitations, and especially the added requirements of creating "presence".
I'm not the first person to think of this stuff. I'm just a dude who's actually read and thought about it.
I have no idea when exactly VR is going to happen--obviously, a >$500 PC + an 800 headset is too big a price point to see mass adoption--but I have no doubt it is going to happen. There's really never been anything like it. I got a Vive some months ago and every person I've shown it to has come out of it looking like they're coming down from a mushroom trip.
However, the challenges to making the experience as compelling as we naturally feel it should be are numerous. Not only does a developer need engineers and art and immersive sound etc., like any interactive medium, but designing for total experience is just something there isn't even a vocabulary for yet. A film director has total control over the frame; a screen-game designer still has quite a bit. Not so in VR; people look wherever they want to. And then how to design for people of all sorts of different physiologies, heights, abilities, etc. etc. and make the experience compelling for each of them? It's a monumental task, and anyone saying otherwise just really hasn't thought about it.
It's my feeling that all this talk about VR "making it" or not is really just a news cycle digesting itself. Last year some people figured out they could make headlines if they talked out of their asses about billions-of-billions-of-dollars in instant revenue. A lot of people outside the industry thought this was pretty exciting. Then it didn't happen. Now the adults (Newell, as well as HTC's CEO Chou, Zuckerberg, etc.) are stepping in and saying, "uhh, we don't know why you were listening to those guys in the first place."
I have no pics of any of the laws of mathematics, the phenomenon of gravity, or _anything_ that happened before the invention of the camera.
You're right, there's a chance that this dev who, IMO seems pretty reasonable, has fabricated this whole thing but has not gotten around to fabricating screenshots of these fabricated conversations (b/c "pics" CAN be fabricated, are not proof themselves unless verified), and so this whole thing COULD unravel if further investigation--which she seems to be inviting--happens. THIS COULD BE!
It could also be that EVERYTHING that happened before this moment is a total lie being told to you by falsified systems of neurons telekinetically arranged in your brain by psychic Illuminati lizard men. COULD BE!!! So, you gonna disbelieve it all?
Seriously. How do STEM folks succumb so easily to logical fallacy?
I find VR wildly interesting, and a lot of the people already in it are pretty revolutionary thinkers. Voices of VR is a pretty interesting project historically too; the host, Kent Bye, sees himself as a sort of historian of what he feels is a real Gutenberg moment. I personally tend to steer away from the low-level graphics and equipment episodes, but he's interviewed a number of artists and performers, educators, etc., and has a staggeringly large perspective on the scene himself.
Well, he has vowed to open a Muslim registry, and though gas chambers aren't on the menu, stripping people of their citizenship (!!!) for burning a flag--a protected form of speech--is pretty, uh, dictatorial.
the GOP saved us from the Anti-Christ Obama, who was sure to appoint himself President-for-Life, and who, unchecked, would have stripped religion, freedom, free enterprise, free speech, free beer, whiteness, and fast food from our great land. Obviously this good news has to do with our optimism about President Trump, who has vowed to preserve our most sacred traditions and Make America Great Again, Like It Used To Be, Before Obama Took All The Jobs, you know?
What's being suggested is not "mob rule"; we would still have elected decision makers. You get that, right?
On top of that, the Senate already operates as a system of weights, giving, for instance, Wyoming (pop. 584k) the same amount of representation as California (pop. 38.8 MILLION). I personally think it's kind of ridiculous that a Wyomingite's vote for Senate is worth 66 times that of a Californian's, but that's not even what's being discussed here.
I mean, do you know what the electoral college does? Can you please explain to me how it is a meaningful check and balance to protecting state's rights, besides that it's gotten two (obviously incompetent) Republicans into the White House?
Frankly I'd rather walk over your sister's corpse than take away money for *MY CHILD* that *I EARNED FIRST* in a one-way agreement that never flows back to myself. Screw you.
Wow.
Do you feel this sick bitterness every day?
Please get help. Your "newborn baby girl" will learn to hate you as she learns what's in your heart.
I haven't responded to anyone on Slashdot in like a year, and here you are, again, saying something that rubbed me so exactly the wrong way I just had to say something! Incredible!
If you're an astroturfer you have to let me know now. It is fate.
Mmm, one metric does not a case make, and "no record of ever punching anyone, ever" does not even make the case that he hasn't, and in fact makes a rather large claim to knowledge (...how do YOU know?). But it's your assertion that "There is no basis for comparison between the two" that really makes me question why you speak in such absolutes? Is your strategy here that of a child, overstate something to make it somehow more true?
I don't think Trump is Hitler, but, some points of comparison, for giggles:
Both Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are white dudes with questionable taste in grooming who promote a rosy-goggled Romantic nostalgia for a distant "better time", appeal explicitly to a similarly romanticized working poor with vague intimations of the action they'll take (note, these volk don't themselves want to know the details), who encourage violence at their well-attended populist rallies, pay special personal attention to costuming and event planning, and who both blame many of their countries' problems on groups of undesirables, descriptions of which cleave closely to popular images of racial minorities.
That other tragedies happen is not a logical argument against taking steps to preventing more of this kind.
I don't fear guns--I shoot trap--nor do I fear getting randomly shot by a lunatic. I don't live in fear, but a bunch more people are living in grief because--AGAIN--some guy with a small arsenal decided he was god.
There's a huge difference between owning a bolt-action rifle for hunting or a shotgun for sport-shooting and collecting a bunch of cool-looking modded-out things originally designed for military use.
And I don't know about you, but I'd wayyyy rather defend against a knife attack than even an unskilled shooter.
Am I right in thinking that your vision of a good solution is to turn a situation in which one person is shooting at people into a situation where a bunch of people are shooting at people in all that panic?
And these shootouts could take place in schools, malls, churches--even airplanes, since, as you've argued, that's not all that dangerous?
Am I discussing this with someone employed as an astroturfer?
I would then ask, why did they remain your students?
Why is it that when you see someone you consider to be a problem, you can't do anything about it?
That is the real problem, not guns or no guns.
Because in an America with this universe's physics I can't tell someone "You're going to kick your 4-year-old son to death in a few months so I'm going to have to ask you to leave class."
Explain to me how students are supposed to focus on class surrounded by people packing firearms?
I learned to shoot when I was 8 years old, I went to summer camp, all the kids were shooting guns, we'd line up 30 at a time with our.22 rifles 50 feet away from the targets. We were taught safe gun handling, respect for our weapons and our fellow human beings, and no horseplay was acceptable or out you went.
It never bothered me being around kids with guns when I was a kid, it doesn't bother me today. It is all about respect and knowledge and knowing how to handle the situation.
That sounds just like my multi-racial classroom discussing contentious social issues like rape and religion, which is also an anecdote. C-. Try harder.
We don't have guns on planes for a very good reason.
We don't? Pilots carry guns now, and frankly they aren't really a serious risk for the airplane, not as much as you'd think.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns, now did they?
"FlyHelicopters (1540845) has just convinced me guns are not all that dangerous on airplanes," I thought to myself as a smashed my head into a wall, "because some people did some violence with things that weren't guns this one time."
As someone with a decade-long career as a college-level teacher, I can attest: guns in the classroom are NOT a solution.
I have had some seriously disturbed students, and some colleagues I would not trust with a dinner knife.
Explain to me how students are supposed to focus on class surrounded by people packing firearms? Explain to me how I'm supposed to focus on teaching in such a scenario? Explain to me how whenever a student is totally unreasonably freaking out over one or some combination of the many stresses standard-issue in a learning environment (bad grades, personality conflict, personal loss or tragedy, economic hardship, etc. etc. etc.) everyone won't be wondering if they won't reach into their bag and do something else totally unreasonable?
We don't have guns on planes for a very good reason. We don't want guns on sporting fields for similarly good reasons.
The ONLY teachers who think guns on campus are a good idea live in Texas. If you went to school in Texas, I understand how you can spout such simplistic malarkey. If you didn't, you need to put some more thought into what actually goes on at a school, AS WELL as the huge range of people who attend colleges, before telling me that I should try to nurture and challenge a bunch of developing minds in possession of loaded weapons.
I won't even get into a rhetorical analysis of the strength of your "Nuh-uhh!" arguments.
And sorry for the aggression, but I'm an Oregonian.
As someone whose primary thing is making art, I'm surprised that the overwhelming majority presumption here is that the practice has no "practical" (read: "marketable"?) value. Especially in a community populated by people trying to find "new" things--things previously undescribed--and create unthought-of solutions to problems of various sizes and severities, I would have guessed that the majority would be well engaged already with a route to such discovery and to such novel thinking.
One thing art has over, say, particle physics is that observing new phenomena is not only physically available to every single person (in their own aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual experience of the world) and the signposts toward discovery are made plain by simply checking in with one's self regularly--essentially, cultivating a rewarding relationship with oneself. How better understanding the instrument one uses to measure the world would be of any use to, oh, say, someone involved with science should not be baffling.
...but I don't think that the only necessities are economic (...as both dyed-thru Marxists and Neocons seem to? I get that this is not you). While it's true the trigger for my involvement with "sharing"--from free-as-in-beer file-sharing to using Airbnb to potlucks to etc. etc.--may sometimes be economic, "because I can't afford to otherwise" doesn't actually make it in the top three of my reasons, now very much engaged with "sharing," for continuing in it.
The New Intimacy is new not because humans are different, but because more are more available than ever before. #internet
Economic "realists" are the children who built the world variously self-destructing.
Slashdot Mirror
Right? Who'da thunk it?
Regulation actually preserving freedom??
I guess there are some situations that the universal application of severe quasi-intellectual philosophies like Objectivism don't really work for. Go figure.
Um. You have never used a Vive, have you.
Pro-tip: saying "fucking" a lot doesn't make up for a total lack of experience in what you're talking about.
Possibly the very exactly same fucking way that game designers have been successfully handling this challenge in games over the past few decades.
Okay, so you're doing level design, say for a shooter. Gears of War. You've got to take cover behind stuff so as not to get annihilated. How do you design that stuff? If you make it too tall you've got some portion of the population that can't see over it, make it too short and you've got people bending at the waist to duck. Make it too thin and you've got someone sticking their arm through it to shoot. Make it too fat and they can just camp out inside it, shielded by the box collider around it.
I get it though. You have to affect frustration to give cause to your desire to be pedantic, because being pedantic is an easier way to seem authoritative than sitting around thinking about a thing for a couple minutes.
Anyways, the examples I gave are just a few small examples of the design differences in VR. Nearly every level of game design is meaningfully different in VR--from how one holds items, to movement (a HUGE open question in VR), to physical acts like throwing, to 3D sound design, to graphical limitations, and especially the added requirements of creating "presence".
I'm not the first person to think of this stuff. I'm just a dude who's actually read and thought about it.
...until I tried it.
I have no idea when exactly VR is going to happen--obviously, a >$500 PC + an 800 headset is too big a price point to see mass adoption--but I have no doubt it is going to happen. There's really never been anything like it. I got a Vive some months ago and every person I've shown it to has come out of it looking like they're coming down from a mushroom trip.
However, the challenges to making the experience as compelling as we naturally feel it should be are numerous. Not only does a developer need engineers and art and immersive sound etc., like any interactive medium, but designing for total experience is just something there isn't even a vocabulary for yet. A film director has total control over the frame; a screen-game designer still has quite a bit. Not so in VR; people look wherever they want to. And then how to design for people of all sorts of different physiologies, heights, abilities, etc. etc. and make the experience compelling for each of them? It's a monumental task, and anyone saying otherwise just really hasn't thought about it.
It's my feeling that all this talk about VR "making it" or not is really just a news cycle digesting itself. Last year some people figured out they could make headlines if they talked out of their asses about billions-of-billions-of-dollars in instant revenue. A lot of people outside the industry thought this was pretty exciting. Then it didn't happen. Now the adults (Newell, as well as HTC's CEO Chou, Zuckerberg, etc.) are stepping in and saying, "uhh, we don't know why you were listening to those guys in the first place."
...you do get that that's an ad absurdum argument, yeah? No?
How the fuck is this cunt's blog NEWS?
Yeah, how does anyone still think that misogyny is rampant in tech circles?
...
Seriously. Jesus.
I also happen to believe in Socrates' definition of Philosopher...
Sadly the left avoids all truth and distorts everything...
Obviously I missed the dialogues in which Socrates endorses total hyperbole.
I have no pics of any of the laws of mathematics, the phenomenon of gravity, or _anything_ that happened before the invention of the camera.
You're right, there's a chance that this dev who, IMO seems pretty reasonable, has fabricated this whole thing but has not gotten around to fabricating screenshots of these fabricated conversations (b/c "pics" CAN be fabricated, are not proof themselves unless verified), and so this whole thing COULD unravel if further investigation--which she seems to be inviting--happens. THIS COULD BE!
It could also be that EVERYTHING that happened before this moment is a total lie being told to you by falsified systems of neurons telekinetically arranged in your brain by psychic Illuminati lizard men. COULD BE!!! So, you gonna disbelieve it all?
Seriously. How do STEM folks succumb so easily to logical fallacy?
I find VR wildly interesting, and a lot of the people already in it are pretty revolutionary thinkers. Voices of VR is a pretty interesting project historically too; the host, Kent Bye, sees himself as a sort of historian of what he feels is a real Gutenberg moment. I personally tend to steer away from the low-level graphics and equipment episodes, but he's interviewed a number of artists and performers, educators, etc., and has a staggeringly large perspective on the scene himself.
...humans are still better at making up games :)
Well, he has vowed to open a Muslim registry, and though gas chambers aren't on the menu, stripping people of their citizenship (!!!) for burning a flag--a protected form of speech--is pretty, uh, dictatorial.
the GOP saved us from the Anti-Christ Obama, who was sure to appoint himself President-for-Life, and who, unchecked, would have stripped religion, freedom, free enterprise, free speech, free beer, whiteness, and fast food from our great land. Obviously this good news has to do with our optimism about President Trump, who has vowed to preserve our most sacred traditions and Make America Great Again, Like It Used To Be, Before Obama Took All The Jobs, you know?
Yes, and abolishing the electoral college would not change the fact of the Republic.
I'll ask again.
Do you think what makes us a Republic is the electoral college?
Do you think what prevents us from electing a tyrant is the electoral college?
Are these real thoughts that you have.
Yes, and abolishing the electoral college would not change the fact of the Republic.
Do you think what makes us a Republic is the electoral college?
Do you think what prevents us from electing a tyrant is the electoral college?
Are these real thoughts that you have.
What's being suggested is not "mob rule"; we would still have elected decision makers. You get that, right?
On top of that, the Senate already operates as a system of weights, giving, for instance, Wyoming (pop. 584k) the same amount of representation as California (pop. 38.8 MILLION). I personally think it's kind of ridiculous that a Wyomingite's vote for Senate is worth 66 times that of a Californian's, but that's not even what's being discussed here.
I mean, do you know what the electoral college does? Can you please explain to me how it is a meaningful check and balance to protecting state's rights, besides that it's gotten two (obviously incompetent) Republicans into the White House?
Frankly I'd rather walk over your sister's corpse than take away money for *MY CHILD* that *I EARNED FIRST* in a one-way agreement that never flows back to myself. Screw you.
Wow.
Do you feel this sick bitterness every day?
Please get help. Your "newborn baby girl" will learn to hate you as she learns what's in your heart.
Oh my gosh dude! I argued with you about a year ago--I had no idea it was you when I was writing out my last comment!
I haven't responded to anyone on Slashdot in like a year, and here you are, again, saying something that rubbed me so exactly the wrong way I just had to say something! Incredible!
If you're an astroturfer you have to let me know now. It is fate.
Mmm, one metric does not a case make, and "no record of ever punching anyone, ever" does not even make the case that he hasn't, and in fact makes a rather large claim to knowledge (...how do YOU know?). But it's your assertion that "There is no basis for comparison between the two" that really makes me question why you speak in such absolutes? Is your strategy here that of a child, overstate something to make it somehow more true?
I don't think Trump is Hitler, but, some points of comparison, for giggles:
Both Donald Trump and Adolf Hitler are white dudes with questionable taste in grooming who promote a rosy-goggled Romantic nostalgia for a distant "better time", appeal explicitly to a similarly romanticized working poor with vague intimations of the action they'll take (note, these volk don't themselves want to know the details), who encourage violence at their well-attended populist rallies, pay special personal attention to costuming and event planning, and who both blame many of their countries' problems on groups of undesirables, descriptions of which cleave closely to popular images of racial minorities.
So, uh, I disagree with what you said, man.
You're actually not responding to any of my arguments, you are picking at details and rhetorical flourishes.
Seriously, are you a paid astroturfer?
That other tragedies happen is not a logical argument against taking steps to preventing more of this kind.
I don't fear guns--I shoot trap--nor do I fear getting randomly shot by a lunatic. I don't live in fear, but a bunch more people are living in grief because--AGAIN--some guy with a small arsenal decided he was god.
There's a huge difference between owning a bolt-action rifle for hunting or a shotgun for sport-shooting and collecting a bunch of cool-looking modded-out things originally designed for military use.
And I don't know about you, but I'd wayyyy rather defend against a knife attack than even an unskilled shooter.
Am I right in thinking that your vision of a good solution is to turn a situation in which one person is shooting at people into a situation where a bunch of people are shooting at people in all that panic?
And these shootouts could take place in schools, malls, churches--even airplanes, since, as you've argued, that's not all that dangerous?
Am I discussing this with someone employed as an astroturfer?
I have had some seriously disturbed students
I would then ask, why did they remain your students?
Why is it that when you see someone you consider to be a problem, you can't do anything about it?
That is the real problem, not guns or no guns.
Because in an America with this universe's physics I can't tell someone "You're going to kick your 4-year-old son to death in a few months so I'm going to have to ask you to leave class."
Explain to me how students are supposed to focus on class surrounded by people packing firearms?
I learned to shoot when I was 8 years old, I went to summer camp, all the kids were shooting guns, we'd line up 30 at a time with our .22 rifles 50 feet away from the targets. We were taught safe gun handling, respect for our weapons and our fellow human beings, and no horseplay was acceptable or out you went.
It never bothered me being around kids with guns when I was a kid, it doesn't bother me today. It is all about respect and knowledge and knowing how to handle the situation.
That sounds just like my multi-racial classroom discussing contentious social issues like rape and religion, which is also an anecdote. C-. Try harder.
We don't have guns on planes for a very good reason.
We don't? Pilots carry guns now, and frankly they aren't really a serious risk for the airplane, not as much as you'd think.
The 9/11 hijackers didn't have guns, now did they?
"FlyHelicopters (1540845) has just convinced me guns are not all that dangerous on airplanes," I thought to myself as a smashed my head into a wall, "because some people did some violence with things that weren't guns this one time."
As someone with a decade-long career as a college-level teacher, I can attest: guns in the classroom are NOT a solution.
I have had some seriously disturbed students, and some colleagues I would not trust with a dinner knife. Explain to me how students are supposed to focus on class surrounded by people packing firearms? Explain to me how I'm supposed to focus on teaching in such a scenario? Explain to me how whenever a student is totally unreasonably freaking out over one or some combination of the many stresses standard-issue in a learning environment (bad grades, personality conflict, personal loss or tragedy, economic hardship, etc. etc. etc.) everyone won't be wondering if they won't reach into their bag and do something else totally unreasonable?
We don't have guns on planes for a very good reason. We don't want guns on sporting fields for similarly good reasons.
The ONLY teachers who think guns on campus are a good idea live in Texas. If you went to school in Texas, I understand how you can spout such simplistic malarkey. If you didn't, you need to put some more thought into what actually goes on at a school, AS WELL as the huge range of people who attend colleges, before telling me that I should try to nurture and challenge a bunch of developing minds in possession of loaded weapons.
I won't even get into a rhetorical analysis of the strength of your "Nuh-uhh!" arguments.
And sorry for the aggression, but I'm an Oregonian.
As someone whose primary thing is making art, I'm surprised that the overwhelming majority presumption here is that the practice has no "practical" (read: "marketable"?) value. Especially in a community populated by people trying to find "new" things--things previously undescribed--and create unthought-of solutions to problems of various sizes and severities, I would have guessed that the majority would be well engaged already with a route to such discovery and to such novel thinking.
One thing art has over, say, particle physics is that observing new phenomena is not only physically available to every single person (in their own aesthetic, emotional, and intellectual experience of the world) and the signposts toward discovery are made plain by simply checking in with one's self regularly--essentially, cultivating a rewarding relationship with oneself. How better understanding the instrument one uses to measure the world would be of any use to, oh, say, someone involved with science should not be baffling.
...but I don't think that the only necessities are economic (...as both dyed-thru Marxists and Neocons seem to? I get that this is not you). While it's true the trigger for my involvement with "sharing"--from free-as-in-beer file-sharing to using Airbnb to potlucks to etc. etc.--may sometimes be economic, "because I can't afford to otherwise" doesn't actually make it in the top three of my reasons, now very much engaged with "sharing," for continuing in it.
The New Intimacy is new not because humans are different, but because more are more available than ever before. #internet
Economic "realists" are the children who built the world variously self-destructing.
You wouldn't believe the lengths some men go to to fuck women who are crazy enough to call "rape" after a drunken hook-up...