Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
The ending '-eous' or '-ious' is added to a noun to produce an adjective that means producing whatever that noun is. Something that is 'advantageous' produces advantage for example.
Except it doesn't mean that at all. It means possessing a particular property. This, of course, was my point with "sanctimonious". It's a very broad suffix and is sometimes used for a thing that causes something, but not only.
The antonym of "nauseated" is "nauseating" -- compare with "tired" and "tiring".
The word the headline writer should have used is 'nauseated', although making users nauseous in the pedantic sense would certainly be a concern for the developers of any product.
The problem with pedantry is that it's almost always wrong.
But the downside of that is that your viewport render is going to need to have a heck of a lot of pixels (tilt will get very blurry if you don't supersample the viewport) which means a high render time, which is another potential source of lag.
The secret to success may actually be to step back several generations in terms of graphical quality so that the 3D render time is negligible. Get a lagless Wolfenstein or Doom going, then build forward from there.
If its just the fluids on the ears, people should be able to get accustomed to the change. Astronauts do.
Given the ratio of applicants to vacancies, space programmes can afford to be selective. I seriously doubt anyone with serious motion sickness would ever be accepted for astronaut training.
We've had hundreds of years of sailing the seas, and the observation is that people's capacity to get over seasickness is minimal. Sailors adjust by compensation strategies (breathing techniques, moving about more/less etc), not by becoming more accustomed.
Which was not too bad 20 years ago. 200fps on a 60Hz display didn't necessarily make you puke, if the software kept your reasonably oriented.
It is about the content. You can say it isn't till you are blue in the face. With a perfected VR environment you could still fuck it up with pukey content.
No, seriously, it's about the tech. First up, you can't get 200fps on a 60Hz display -- it maxes out at 60fps, aka 60Hz.
Secondly, when you're looking at a screen, you're looking at a screen. When your head moves, the screen doesn't. The image might not react optimally to your fingers, but it certainly reacts to your head.
But once the screen is strapped to your head, you are pretty much immersed. You have no physical real-world point of reference, and your brain does get confused. I once piloted a ship at night, and sadly the AC generator on board has a tendency to run slow (about 45Hz, I think). There was visible flicker in your peripheral vision below decks. But the worst bit was the compass-card on the helm. You couldn't see the flicker, but persistence of vision coupled with the motion of the boat left it floating around in front of my vision like a circular ghost with numbers around its edge. I got so sick that I couldn't leave the deck for the next 8 hours, and had to be excused from my next watch.
Or my favorite: Don't use commas, which aren't needed. But I haven't seen such lists of bogus definitions.
I'm against artificial rules, but at the same time, I recognise that all writing is artificial. We need to have sensible conventions, and I wish we spent more time teaching punctuation conventions at school, because nonsensical commas split sentences badly. The basic rule is simple: never use a comma where you wouldn't naturally pause in speech -- this shouldn't really be contentious. The contentious cases are where there is a pause but the word after implies a pause/The contentious cases are where there is a pause, but the word after implies a pause.
It is completely legitimate to prefer that people use nauseated over nauseous as the expanded definition of the latter to include the former can hinder communication and cause confusion.
How can it be "expanded" if it has always been that way? Besides, the verb "nauseate" is so rare as to be negligible, and without the verb form to support it, the past-participle-derived adjectival form is non-intuitive.
We certainly should care about our language and quoting dictionaries at people who do so is a high form of anti-thinking which just discourages people from caring.
We should be selective about what we care about, or we risk wiping out good changes, such as when teachers reversed the death of person conjugations -- see restoration comedies for invariant "was" in the past tense, for example.
If we are talking about hardware kickstarters, or book kickstarters, or anything which involves manufacturing, if they do not have a working prototype yet it is always a risk to invest in it. If they have a working prototype and the money is only to pay for low rate initial production then the risk is low.
Looking at their project page, it really seemed like they had a prototype. They had lots of pictures taken with their "really fast" prototype. Which was presumably actually an updated V1 unit, and not actually a prototype of the new one at all. This puts them in a nasty position legally. They claimed to have a functional prototype. They appeared to be displaying an actual cased prototype. They gave every indication of being further on than they really were.
The fundamental problem with Kickstarter is that there's no accountability for handling the money.
Only if you completely, and entirely, miss what it's used for. If someone wants to set up a kickstarter equivalent where projects must be independently audited, project plans validated, and investors have some legally watertight form of ownership as well as power to intervene then they are welcome to set it up. Here's one of the projects highlighted on Kickstarter's frontpage: Help send The Kinsey Sicks to the Edinburgh Fringe Festival! They want ~$24,500 to go to and perform at a Festival. They aren't trying to sell a product, they are asking fans to help them. Some of the higher pledges include getting a CD or some such. Why on earth does a project like this need drowning in bureaucracy (the lack of which is what you claim is Kickstarter's weakness) because some other people naively think Kickstarter is a zero risk pre-order store?
I'm pretty certain that their budget is well-costed, because they know up-front the cost of flights, accommodation, venue hire etc etc etc. No design, no R&D, no prototyping, no retooling. The costs are easily identified and easily audited. You, perhaps, are the one who is missing the point.