Slashdot Mirror

It would be great if this feature will project incoming text messages

I'll allow it, if it uses the Star Wars Crawl effect.

I've seen plenty of people reading the newspaper, and once or twice someone reading a novel,[1] while driving. This would be really convenient for them.

Another good use: project 3D illusions to fool oncoming drivers. Fun for the whole family!

[1] My favorite: On Colorado 159, between San Luis and the New Mexico border. At night a very dark road, one lane in each direction, no median, breakdown lanes, or guard rails. 65mph speed limit, rarely enforced. With 17 miles of open horse range - and, yeah, I've seen horses on that road. I was driving it late one night when I came up behind an old Honda Civic with the interior lights on, doing about 40mph. As I passed it, I saw the driver had a book propped on the steering wheel. Didn't even glance my way as I went by.

Flying carpets were perfected by Arab magicians centuries ago.

http://www.moillusions.com/fly...

I suggest buying a washing machine. Also there's this http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy5g33S0Gzo

Robots, especially those that move around (and around humans) are difficult, it's not an easy task to emulate the human pattern recognition in an image (like, detect a human). Take a look at this picture for example: http://www.moillusions.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/Mysterious-Dalmatian-Optical-Illusion.jpg it's pretty hard to come up with some algorithm that sees that there's a dog. But they are moving forwards.

The second place winner is called "Grouping by Contrast"

Mirror here: http://www.moillusions.com/2011/05/grouping-by-contrast.html

see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html

I just can't see it.. but then maybe because I've only got one eye.

"(see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm)."

Wow. Now that is invisible. A picture that generates an HTTP 404 error when you look at it is cool, but of course there is always the danger that someone will just come along and add an "l" at the end of it. (see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html , not .htm ).

Disclaimer: I only clicked on it because I thought it said Jullie-Ann Beavers. Needless to say I was rather disappointed after defeating the URL / invisibility mechanism.

"(see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm)."

Wow. Now that is invisible. A picture that generates an HTTP 404 error when you look at it is cool, but of course there is always the danger that someone will just come along and add an "l" at the end of it. (see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html , not .htm ).

Disclaimer: I only clicked on it because I thought it said Jullie-Ann Beavers. Needless to say I was rather disappointed after defeating the URL / invisibility mechanism.

Very cool link, there was just a typo in your url.

The correct url is http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.html

I can understand how they could use these materials (theoretically anyway) to make Julian Beever-style illusions (see http://www.moillusions.com/2007/12/julian-beevers-new-3d-sidewalk.htm). But a real invisibility cloak has to detect the direction of every photon striking it and deliver that proton in the same direction out the exact opposite side of the cloak, doesn't it? Otherwise the effect is likely to be like a Beever painting, viewable from only one precise viewpoint.

-------

Theory blazes the trail, but it can't pave the road

With a stethoscope - you can say, 'This sound....it's almost always the result of X'. With the Rorschach pictures...you can't.

So, a lot of people don't see the benefit. And if the benefit is something like, 'Well, the highly trained professions therapist can pick up on the subtle undertones of the patient and gain insight into the blah, blah, blah' it really seems like you could just say, 'We observe the patient and notice that he's crazy'.

I'm going out on a limb here, but I'm guessing that your exposure to medical information is limited to primarily watching ER, General Hospital, Bones, House, and the like on TV. And that your psychological experience is similarly informed.

Psychology is not an exact, hard science. But it is getting there. I'm the adult child of a clinical psychologist who specializes in testing. I also, in my line of work, specialize in behavioral tests, although to measure neuroscientific parameters rather than psychological ones. Testing is difficult. Having a well-understood tool with a wide body of reference material is important. Intentionally screwing up an important test by publishing the details about that test is unethical.

Beyond that, if the test requires the patient not knowing about the test in advance or understanding the test; that's a good reason to question the validity of the test.

If someone has a heart condition that can be detected with a stethoscope - knowing how the stethoscope works - does not affect the results. But, apparently, looking at the pictures, in advance, diminishes their effectiveness.

I'm not saying a Rorschach test is crap. I'm just explaining why I think it's probably crap.

Your attitude here demonstrates a deep naivite about psychological testing. Have you ever seen the famous images that have dual interpretation (eg, http://www.moillusions.com/2006/05/young-lady-or-old-hag.html)? Previous exposure to them makes a HUGE difference in how you answer. Massively huge. Unlike measuring, say, heartbeat, measuring mental state, and visual perception in particular, requires knowing whether or not a subject has previous exposure. It is much easier to assume that there has been zero previous exposure and normalize responses based on that assumption. Allowing previous exposure complicates the test to the point of uselessness. The problem is not that the inkblots are inherently flawed (though they may be for other reasons) but that visual perception is highly sensitive to previous experience.

And, in case you didn't realize, many physiological measurements are highly dependent on the psychological state of the subject. Your heartrate and blood pressure are generally higher when taken in a doctor's office than when taken at home because you are aware of the measurement being taken by someone in a lab coat in a stressful environment. Psychology influences physiology all over the place. That's the whole reason that double-blind testing is the gold standard for medical (even non-psychological) validation: not only does the mental state of the patient matter, the mental state of the doctor administering the test can as well!

So, while your analogy to a stethoscope might seem good at first, it's not really appropriate. Humans are not machines. Biology is messy, and psychology doubly so.