• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Ready player one, here we come

Ready Player One is my all time favorite book.

FB already owns Oculus, and is selling the system cheap to get more people into VR. I would love it if they can create some version of the Oasis.
 
marc said:
Ready Player One is my all time favorite book.

FB already owns Oculus, and is selling the system cheap to get more people into VR. I would love it if they can create some version of the Oasis.
Click to expand...

I actually hope it fails. The last thing we need is a world spanning community led by a corporation on a mission to protect anyone from ever getting offended. I couldn't imagine anything more soul destroying. Better just skip the VR and give us all soma already (Brave New World reference).

It's worth keeping in mind the Jameel Arts Centre in Dubai. The world's first major art center dedicated to art that won't offend anyone. Never heard of it? Really. It's only the best funded contemporary art museum in the world. You're sure you've never heard of it? It's very... well funded.

Die die Facebook
 
Metaverse is a reference to Neal Stephenson's Snow Crash from 1992. Not sure if it was the first depiction of such virtual space in fiction, but it certainly precedes Ready Player One that came out in 2010 or so.

I think VR is limited by the hardware. When we get goggles that are as convient as sunglasses, it might work out. There are rumors that Apple might launch its own VR goggles in the near future, and facebook might be aiming for the same space: controlling the hardware and software that let's you access virtual spaces, plus sneak in some ads and monetize content.
 
Angry Floof suggests I post this here.

I have this dissertation on discrimination of moving auditory signals at zero degrees and 30 degrees elevation and 0 degrees, 45 degrees and 90 degrees azimuth that contain information not yet found anywhere else in the psychoacoustic literature I've search. It's been sitting around at Florida State University library for about 43 years. I've never published anything, nor has anyone else for that matter. That's the reason for this post.

It's interesting because I think I've found a basis for claiming that humans and perhaps other mammals and reptiles base their auditory information processing on doppler like information. This conclusion is backed up by improvements moving signals provide for discriminating small angular separations and the existence of outer hair cells in the cochlear nucleus which seem capable of providing a basis for treating moving frequencies.

The paper is dense, in many respects poorly written. Those facts probably explain the factors mentioned above not being noticed. It's a terrible thing to ask someone to look at a paper that hides most of the important data and findings in detailed analysis of signal and technique. However if one wants to take a shot there might publishable theoretical material getting at the root of hearing.

I'm 80, isolated and responsible for the miserable communication job the paper reflects. So I won't be gaining anything if you'd like to take a crack at wading through the paper. I'm very willing to provide whatever help you might need.

Just saying thanks Angry Floof.
 
fromderinside said:
Angry Floof suggests I post this here.

I have this dissertation on discrimination of moving auditory signals at zero degrees and 30 degrees elevation and 0 degrees, 45 degrees and 90 degrees azimuth that contain information not yet found anywhere else in the psychoacoustic literature I've search. It's been sitting around at Florida State University library for about 43 years. I've never published anything, nor has anyone else for that matter. That's the reason for this post.

It's interesting because I think I've found a basis for claiming that humans and perhaps other mammals and reptiles base their auditory information processing on doppler like information. This conclusion is backed up by improvements moving signals provide for discriminating small angular separations and the existence of outer hair cells in the cochlear nucleus which seem capable of providing a basis for treating moving frequencies.

The paper is dense, in many respects poorly written. Those facts probably explain the factors mentioned above not being noticed. It's a terrible thing to ask someone to look at a paper that hides most of the important data and findings in detailed analysis of signal and technique. However if one wants to take a shot there might publishable theoretical material getting at the root of hearing.

I'm 80, isolated and responsible for the miserable communication job the paper reflects. So I won't be gaining anything if you'd like to take a crack at wading through the paper. I'm very willing to provide whatever help you might need.

Just saying thanks Angry Floof.
Click to expand...
This post deserves its own thread. This thread is about Facebook changing its name.
 
Angry Floof said:
fromderinside said:
Angry Floof suggests I post this here.

I have this dissertation on discrimination of moving auditory signals at zero degrees and 30 degrees elevation and 0 degrees, 45 degrees and 90 degrees azimuth that contain information not yet found anywhere else in the psychoacoustic literature I've search. It's been sitting around at Florida State University library for about 43 years. I've never published anything, nor has anyone else for that matter. That's the reason for this post.

It's interesting because I think I've found a basis for claiming that humans and perhaps other mammals and reptiles base their auditory information processing on doppler like information. This conclusion is backed up by improvements moving signals provide for discriminating small angular separations and the existence of outer hair cells in the cochlear nucleus which seem capable of providing a basis for treating moving frequencies.

The paper is dense, in many respects poorly written. Those facts probably explain the factors mentioned above not being noticed. It's a terrible thing to ask someone to look at a paper that hides most of the important data and findings in detailed analysis of signal and technique. However if one wants to take a shot there might publishable theoretical material getting at the root of hearing.

I'm 80, isolated and responsible for the miserable communication job the paper reflects. So I won't be gaining anything if you'd like to take a crack at wading through the paper. I'm very willing to provide whatever help you might need.

Just saying thanks Angry Floof.
Click to expand...
This post deserves its own thread. This thread is about Facebook changing its name.
Click to expand...
Getting older than I thought.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom