Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Slashdot Deals: Cyber Monday Sale! Courses ranging from coding to project management - all eLearning deals 25% off with coupon code "CYBERMONDAY25". ×

Comment Re:"not more expensive screen technologies"? (Score 1) 25

Interesting, my take-away from the article was that the display isn't being updated with the right information, i.e., perhaps different parts of the visual field should be updated differently due to the feedback from the head motion monitor, and current software isn't yet doing the optimal job given the inputs it gets. That was my impression from wearing one. But yeah, manipulating the vestibular feedback system would be a cool addition to any helmet. I think tcms or eventually optogenetics is up to the job.

Comment Re:"not more expensive screen technologies"? (Score 1, Interesting) 25

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.

Comment Re:95% of Contraband... (Score 1) 349

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.

Comment Re: Censoring speech... (Score 1) 585

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.

Comment Re:Had to stop reading TFA (Score 1) 160

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?

Comment Re:It should be obvious (Score 1) 375

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.

You don't have to know how the computer works, just how to work the computer.