Yep, I agree. There's a lot of software/hardware improvement to make. But as soon as you press the W key and start walking forward, there's something no hardware can fix happening. Your eyes see forward motion, your inner ear doesn't.
Well, I was going to ask about this, but thanks for the comment. I make a policy of always typing my passwords rather than letting software save it, so that I am forced to learn my own password, but even if I didn't, this would make me delete the data from my system entirely.
Dramamine increased my tolerance by maybe 15 minutes, and no, I'm not. My girlfriend is motion-sickness prone, and she gets more like 10 minutes at a time.
They do. The unity engine is cross-platform, and many of the rift-targeted applications use it. Valve supports linux with their games, and valve supports the rift, but I can't say with any confidence that the intersection is supported.
It's really the tech going into smart phone development that has paved the way. Lots of good, cheap, and small sensors, chips, and screens available. And of course, that 3d games actually look like not-a-pile-of-feces these days helps too.
Troll cares enough about it to hate it and expend energy complaining about it.
That's a lame argument and you know it. Stop using it. It convinces no one of anything. You can take an active disinterest in something, and express concern about excessive exposure. I don't think it's reasonable for the Rift, which is awesome, but you can do it without tacitly endorsing the subject matter.
It's too late for the nowhere at all argument. Oculus is supported by Valve, ID, Epic, and a few other major players, already. There's already contracts to get a consumer version into physical stores sometime next year. Jumping the gun with "revolution" is a bit much, but the technology is already getting entrenched as a de-facto standard for VR.
I love my rift, I just got it, but John Carmack's existence won't magically cure the motion sickness. For "real games" and not tech-demos, I can play maybe a half hour of rift at a time, before I have to go lie down.
this is off topic, but there is lots of history that shows that some of these dystopian ideas are dumb. the USA and Australia were both originally populated by criminals, slaves, and people the UK didn't want. both became greater than the mother country because of tremendous "available" tracts of land and natural resources
I think you're missing the point. It's not about the spirit of the people, it's about the raw capital, and ability to grow through rapid economic expansion. Except for maybe Mars, space doesn't really provide that.
Wah wah wah, let's pretend that democrats are the hypernationalists who never acknowledge the unethical premises in U.S. foreign policy because Obama has done bad things.
As someone else said, I was mistaken, and it's Japan's constitution, not a treaty that establishes the defensive nature of their military.
If it were a treaty, the U.S. has every interest in establishing the appearance of a nation that enforces its treaties, for fear that other nations would flout them.
Would you believe that it's extremely complex and and the boiled down version dates back to WWII(and the real version dates way before that). Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it. Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong, and view the Chinese assertions about the rape of Nanking and other atrocities as propaganda. The U.S. uses Japan as a proxy in limiting China's imperialism, which only further sours the resentment around these things.
China, for their part, are lead by a bunch of unelected fascists, who do in fact, publish anti-Japan propaganda in addition to the true things, making Japan seem like a inhuman monster in the public consciousness. We're lucky they're only really in a cold war with each other, because the U.S. would almost certainly get drawn into one side or the other.
No, the GP was arguing for murder by suffocation, which is honestly a lot more torturous than most alternatives. It's just a really wasteful way to kill some people.
And who will pay for this rocket? Just putting a person in space is extraordinarily expensive, shooting them all to Mars is mind-blowingly expensive, and even if they're crazy people with absurd dreams(are they?) you'd want to get something for doing it.
I think we can make a fair near-objective distinction between printed-at-kinkos, and published to an academic journal. There are only a few edge cases that would really raise doubt about that.
Notability has an objective criteria. Non-trivial non-fiction published works about the subject. Without meeting that base criteria, everything in the article loses another crucial aspect: verifiability. It's about establishing wikipedia's credibility, not about limiting breadth for limitation's sake.
Slashdot Mirror
And France didn't so much sympathize as want to screw over the English holdings in the Americas after the French and Indian war.
On the plus side, it gives you a great excuse for burping in mixed company.
Yep, I agree. There's a lot of software/hardware improvement to make. But as soon as you press the W key and start walking forward, there's something no hardware can fix happening. Your eyes see forward motion, your inner ear doesn't.
Well, I was going to ask about this, but thanks for the comment. I make a policy of always typing my passwords rather than letting software save it, so that I am forced to learn my own password, but even if I didn't, this would make me delete the data from my system entirely.
Dramamine increased my tolerance by maybe 15 minutes, and no, I'm not. My girlfriend is motion-sickness prone, and she gets more like 10 minutes at a time.
They do. The unity engine is cross-platform, and many of the rift-targeted applications use it. Valve supports linux with their games, and valve supports the rift, but I can't say with any confidence that the intersection is supported.
It's really the tech going into smart phone development that has paved the way. Lots of good, cheap, and small sensors, chips, and screens available. And of course, that 3d games actually look like not-a-pile-of-feces these days helps too.
Troll cares enough about it to hate it and expend energy complaining about it.
That's a lame argument and you know it. Stop using it. It convinces no one of anything. You can take an active disinterest in something, and express concern about excessive exposure. I don't think it's reasonable for the Rift, which is awesome, but you can do it without tacitly endorsing the subject matter.
It's too late for the nowhere at all argument. Oculus is supported by Valve, ID, Epic, and a few other major players, already. There's already contracts to get a consumer version into physical stores sometime next year. Jumping the gun with "revolution" is a bit much, but the technology is already getting entrenched as a de-facto standard for VR.
Now if the doodz behind the Unreal Engine throw their .02 in too, that would seal it.
Unreal, Source, and Unity engines already have full support. So... what?
I love my rift, I just got it, but John Carmack's existence won't magically cure the motion sickness. For "real games" and not tech-demos, I can play maybe a half hour of rift at a time, before I have to go lie down.
this is off topic, but there is lots of history that shows that some of these dystopian ideas are dumb. the USA and Australia were both originally populated by criminals, slaves, and people the UK didn't want. both became greater than the mother country because of tremendous "available" tracts of land and natural resources
I think you're missing the point. It's not about the spirit of the people, it's about the raw capital, and ability to grow through rapid economic expansion. Except for maybe Mars, space doesn't really provide that.
Wah wah wah, let's pretend that democrats are the hypernationalists who never acknowledge the unethical premises in U.S. foreign policy because Obama has done bad things.
As someone else said, I was mistaken, and it's Japan's constitution, not a treaty that establishes the defensive nature of their military.
If it were a treaty, the U.S. has every interest in establishing the appearance of a nation that enforces its treaties, for fear that other nations would flout them.
Would you believe that it's extremely complex and and the boiled down version dates back to WWII(and the real version dates way before that). Japan did some horrible things to Chinese people in WWII, and their government has never acknowledged any of it. Japanese nationalists, much like U.S. republicans are unwilling to accept that their country has ever done anything wrong, and view the Chinese assertions about the rape of Nanking and other atrocities as propaganda. The U.S. uses Japan as a proxy in limiting China's imperialism, which only further sours the resentment around these things.
China, for their part, are lead by a bunch of unelected fascists, who do in fact, publish anti-Japan propaganda in addition to the true things, making Japan seem like a inhuman monster in the public consciousness. We're lucky they're only really in a cold war with each other, because the U.S. would almost certainly get drawn into one side or the other.
Yeah, well, treaties enforced by the U.S. don't really allow "offensive capability."
Not even an edge case. Outright acceptable on wikipedia.
Yeah, but we value what blind people have to say. "Damn near the entire human race" can go fuck themselves.
No, the GP was arguing for murder by suffocation, which is honestly a lot more torturous than most alternatives. It's just a really wasteful way to kill some people.
And who will pay for this rocket? Just putting a person in space is extraordinarily expensive, shooting them all to Mars is mind-blowingly expensive, and even if they're crazy people with absurd dreams(are they?) you'd want to get something for doing it.
Dude, let it go, this thread was started on a post about how everyone's opinions are wrong. Not a good context for debate.
I think we can make a fair near-objective distinction between printed-at-kinkos, and published to an academic journal. There are only a few edge cases that would really raise doubt about that.
Come on, I said "wrong" not "worse than a hypothetical Hitler-Stalin hybrid"
How will it disguise my terrible opinions that are obviously wrong?
Notability has an objective criteria. Non-trivial non-fiction published works about the subject. Without meeting that base criteria, everything in the article loses another crucial aspect: verifiability. It's about establishing wikipedia's credibility, not about limiting breadth for limitation's sake.