Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Hope they will fix the motion sickness problem (Score 2, Interesting) 104

by Sonny Yatsen (#44044395) Attached to: Oculus Rift Raises Another $16 Million

I am really looking forward to the Oculus' public release, but I really hope they fix the lag in head tracking that results in motion sickness or dizziness in the users. As a guy who used to get nauseous after a few hours of Duke Nukem or Doom, that'd be a pretty major negative in determining whether I will buy one or not.

Also, I'm glad we've finally hit Johnny Mnemonic levels of tech in real life. Bring on the talking dolphins.

Comment: Language Confusion (Score 4, Interesting) 200

by Sonny Yatsen (#44035131) Attached to: Trying To Learn a Foreign Language? Avoid Reminders of Home

FTA: "For Chinese immigrants in the United States, speaking to a Chinese (vs. Caucasian) face reduced their English fluency, but at the same time increased their social comfort, effects that did not occur for a comparison group of European Americans (study 1)."

In my experience as a native speaker of Chinese, the reduced fluency in English when speaking with another Chinese person is due to the fact that in the back of my head, I'm trying to determine whether I should use English or Chinese to express an idea and it usually expresses itself as Chinglish. If the other person is Chinese but doesn't speak the same dialect as I do and I am using purely English to communicate, I don't get the same effect.

Comment: Re:make human drivers illegal (Score 1) 327

by Monchanger (#41232549) Attached to: Networked Cars: Good For Safety, Bad For Privacy

You talk like machines are infallible. They're not. They're designed and programmed by humans after all.

Perfect example of why machines would do a better job at driving. Your comment is typical of humanity at its worst: emotional, quick to judge, irrational, and suffering from both a terrible lack of wisdom and a disturbing amount of over-confidence.

Machines are designed by people, yes, but they aren't granted any negative traits. Nobody will ever design a car which will give a damn if you cut it off, honk at it, or display a political bumper sticker. No program would include random events like a fight with an ex-wife, or "a case of the Mondays". An algorithm will take all relevant data, nothing else, perform calculations to maximize efficiency and safety (including many never-ignored safety measures as mentioned by others above), and execute those with clockwork precision. Not only that but it will do so in direct collaboration with other vehicles using unambiguous communication conveying clear intentions. It will be studied, analyzed, debated, implemented, iterated and improved ad infinitum. It's not about wishy-washy "feeling safe", it's about concrete and measurable improvement.

PS- Traffic isn't safer. Cars are safer. Big difference. Only the machines have improved, while humans have gotten worse.

Comment: Re:make human drivers illegal (Score 1) 327

by Monchanger (#41232405) Attached to: Networked Cars: Good For Safety, Bad For Privacy
WTF? "Control over physical movement"? Nobody is stopping you from going anywhere you like. Only freeing you from the mind-numbingly mundane task of navigating and inching through gridlock. If you feel that's "suffocation of the mind" and that driving counts as "involvement in life", you've got way bigger problems than robotic vehicles.

Comment: Re:Spin right round baby... (Score 1) 550

by Monchanger (#40894927) Attached to: Is Your Neighbor a Democrat? There's an App For That

Republicans remain the Jesus party,

They are no longer. The Tea Party is directing activity to a saner direction, basically fiscal responsibility and shrinking government.

You haven't been paying attention. The current House has spent half its time trying to stop abortion. The other half has been spent making empty gestures by "repealing" the ACA over thirty times despite it obviously being an exercise in futility. Its other "accomplishments"? The US credit rating has been damaged, and we're on track to a devastating sequestration.

Please explain to us how this is a more sane government. Einstein's quote suggests these are textbook examples of the exact opposite.

Comment: Re:A good reason to go independent (Score 1) 550

by Monchanger (#40892243) Attached to: Is Your Neighbor a Democrat? There's an App For That
Well put. The act of informing the public that private interests have this access is a huge plus. The FEC has made it very easy to search by contributor name on its website. In a democratic society all citizens should have access to such information, not just those with money or connections.

If people have a problem with the privacy regulation, their issue is with the campaign finance system, not a specific campaign. This issue has been raised for years now, so do your homework. But try not to get swept up by the silly notions that secret contributions, regardless of amount, are a lesser evil. I highly recommend checking out the related ideas of Prof. Lawrence Lessig and the Republican candidate you've never heard of- Buddy Roemer. They discussed just this issue a week or two ago in their congressional testimony (it's on C-SPAN).

Comment: Re:Stick With What Works (Score 2) 364

by Sonny Yatsen (#40872015) Attached to: Ask Slashdot: Best Way To Take Notes In the Modern Classroom?

I second the pen and paper note-taking suggestion. I've found that if I type my notes in class, I spend more time transcribing every word the lecturer says instead of paying attention to the lecture and noting down the points that are important. Of course, you can always ask the lecturer if you can record the class if you need the crutch.

Comment: Re:Sure it is... (Score 2) 52

by Sonny Yatsen (#40796015) Attached to: OnLive Coming To Ouya Android Console

Wouldn't giving Apple a 30% cut only come into play if OnLive is making subscriptions available via in-app purchases? If OnLive is able to get people to sign up for their service on a website (like, say, Netflix) and set up subscriptions there, I don't see how Apple would be able to take a piece of their revenues that way.

Comment: Re:Interesting but... (Score 1) 52

by Sonny Yatsen (#40795983) Attached to: OnLive Coming To Ouya Android Console

There is a growing number of games on Android that provide controller support already, so it's not absolutely required that an Android game MUST utilize touchscreen technology. Besides, the Ouya controller will have an integrated touchpad on the face of the controller so you can use the controller even while you're playing a game that might require some aspect of touch.

Comment: Re:No they are not forced.... (Score 1) 216

by Monchanger (#40299747) Attached to: House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Identify Trolls

You've not read the bill. It doesn't deal with criminality. It doesn't outlaw libel or harassment. It doesn't, as you've suggested, "Amending it how? To add "on a computer" to the list of places you can't commit libel or slander?" It doesn't even contain the word "computer".

(1) 20This section applies where an action for defamation is brought against the operator of a website in respect of a statement posted on the website.

That's a civil action. Not a criminal one. In fact, the criminal laws were repealed a couple years ago. Your reply was the only non sequitur in this thread.

So cocky and arrogant, you. You've said your peace so nobody else's matters, eh? Such dangerous traits in those who presume to have a superior opinion, when in fact they're as ignorant as they come. Shit, you couldn't even bother to answer my reply. You just tried to change the subject (while flip-flopping on your position, no less) to avoid appearing like the argumentative prick you are. If you can't be bothered with facts or reality, go post your rantings on extremist YouTube videos like a good lunatic.

Comment: Re:No they are not forced.... (Score 1) 216

by Monchanger (#40297173) Attached to: House of Commons Could Force Social Networks To Identify Trolls

Sure, I agree there should be laws, but what I don't agree to is that there should be new laws just because the old ones don't specify "on a computer."

All iserlohn said was "need some sort of law". If you agree on the point of a law's necessity, where exactly is the disagreement?

Is your objection purely with regards to the legal code's table of contents? That would seem a little pedantic to me. If the old law didn't provide for something you now want, you can't avoid passing an Act in Parliament, or a Bill in Congress. Whether you want to call these a "new law" or a "correction" isn't important. Especially in England, where I believe the law has never been codified, so there would not even be a technical difference.

Money is the root of all evil, and man needs roots.

Working...