Slashdot Mirror


Microsoft's Glasses-Free 3D Display

An anonymous reader writes "The Microsoft Applied Sciences Group has developed a new lens that lets you watch three-dimensional content without 3D glasses. The new lens is thinner at the bottom (about 6mm) than at the top (11mm) and steers light to a viewer's eyes via LEDs along its bottom edge. The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light; the idea isn't new, but the required CPU power is now affordable and small enough to pull it off on a large scale."

197 comments

  1. Wow by Seriousity · · Score: 5, Funny

    The Blue Screen of Death will look awesome in 3D!

    --
    This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
    1. Re:Wow by WrongSizeGlass · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light

      And the Blue Screen of Death will be looking back at you!

    2. Re:Wow by Svippy · · Score: 1

      So with all this nonsense of 3D and voice commands with the new Xbox, if they are moving this to Windows, how do I press the 'any key'?

      Windows, press any key.

      But the body tracking from the Kenict or whatever research development lead to this head tracking. Also, will the text be 3D?

      --
      Clicked pie.
    3. Re:Wow by insertwackynamehere · · Score: 1

      Sounds like Nietzche had he been around in the mid 1990s

    4. Re:Wow by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      The Blue Screen of Death will look awesome in 3D!

      Or will it be The Red Ring of Death?

    5. Re:Wow by Seriousity · · Score: 1

      In all seriousity, I wasn't joking.

      --
      This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
    6. Re:Wow by Seriousity · · Score: 1

      To press the any key, you throw the controller against the wall with all of your might.
      ......................
      Then you buy a new one.

      --
      This post was made in complete sincere seriousity; as such any attempts to derive humour are doomed to instant failure.
    7. Re:Wow by DJRumpy · · Score: 1

      You're not thinking of the potential profits. Now they can charge a per person license just to watch TV. From TFA:

      "Various companies have shown off 3D displays that don't require glasses, but those sets often use lenticular lenses, which are integrated into the display and project different images in two fixed directions. As a result, the viewer needs to be in a designated zone to experience 3D. Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time by presenting different images to their left and right eyes (one video for each), regardless of where they are. It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously (one video for each person)."

    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So with all this nonsense of 3D and voice commands with the new Xbox, if they are moving this to Windows, how do I press the 'any key'?...

      Replaced with 'Beat head against screen' command

    9. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A Microsoft TV watching me... This sounds like a GREAT idea! What could possibly go wrong? Where do I go to sign up?

    10. Re:Wow by daveime · · Score: 1

      I swear this is an **IA plot to double the "losses due to piracy".

      Think about it, with 3D you are actually torrenting not one, but two, copyrighted movies every time.

    11. Re:Wow by tattood · · Score: 1

      And the Blue Screen of Death will be looking back at you!

      But only in Soviet Russia.

      --
      WTB [sig], PST!!!
  2. # of viewiers? by B5_geek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    So this only works with one person?

    --
    "The price good men pay for indifference to public affairs is to be ruled by evil men." ~Plato (427-347 BC)
    1. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

      RTFA

      Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time by presenting different images to their left and right eyes (one video for each), regardless of where they are. It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously (one video for each person).

    2. Re:# of viewiers? by Sockatume · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Several people. They've discussed using it as a privacy screen or conversely to display different sets of information to different observers.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    3. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Don't let the article slow down your assumptions! ;)
      "Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time."

    4. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      RTFA

      (one video for each) ... (one video for each person).

      split screen?

    5. Re:# of viewiers? by SiaFhir · · Score: 1

      It works for two people, or can show a different 2-D display for up to 4 people. So it's useless as a 3-D display if you have a party over watching the game, or if the whole family is watching movies. It's a great display for loners, sucks for anyone else.

    6. Re:# of viewiers? by Dishevel · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Its a great display for families wanting to do different things as well. I can be playing my PS3 my daughter can watch the fucking insipid show Glee and my wife can be watching Avatar in 3D. So how is this useless? Oh I know. You are just mad. Hey I hate Microsoft too. I just do not allow it to destroy my ability to think.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    7. Re:# of viewiers? by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Some high end cars already have screens like that. The driver sees a sat nav display, the passenger sees a video.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    8. Re:# of viewiers? by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      Several people. They've discussed using it as a privacy screen or conversely to display different sets of information to different observers.

      The idea of displaying multiple pictures to different people is actually of more interest to me than the 3D application. 3D pictures confined to the small surface area of your TV just doesn't inspire me that much, but the prospect of being able to watch decent television programs while my wife watches her crappy soap operas on a single TV is a truely fantastic prospect.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    9. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And are you all wearing headphones, or just putting up with three audio tracks at once?

    10. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

      Thanks for taking my thoughts down the dystopia train of thought.

      First, they send each person their own image, then they send each person their own sounds, and what's next? Microphones? You have the camera, which they might as well make really high quality, so we can record ourselves with our TVs. And next thing you know, you're living in a dystopia.

    11. Re:# of viewiers? by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      per left and right eye pricing

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    12. Re:# of viewiers? by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · · Score: 2, Funny

      It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously Stop the presses! Bob, Joe, Sally: gather 'round my ordinary computer monitor with me and read what Ars Technica is reporting about a display that can show TWO DIMENSIONAL content to up to FOUR PEOPLE!

    13. Re:# of viewiers? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      Yeah, shame you can't direct the sound yet. Enjoy your headache.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    14. Re:# of viewiers? by Sockatume · · Score: 1

      Right, it's a more generalised version of that, which I believe is an application of the parallax barrier tech that's going into Nintendo's 3DS.

      --
      No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
    15. Re:# of viewiers? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1

      Headphones

    16. Re:# of viewiers? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 4, Funny

      Seconded! Sitting through crappy reality shows about fat people losing weight is neigh torture. She feels the same way about Stargate. So we compromise and watch her shows.

    17. Re:# of viewiers? by vegiVamp · · Score: 2, Funny

      Good luck pushing your fancy 7.1 sound through headphones.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    18. Re:# of viewiers? by Cytotoxic · · Score: 1

      It can also show ordinary 2D video for up to four people simultaneously
      Stop the presses! Bob, Joe, Sally: gather 'round my ordinary computer monitor with me and read what Ars Technica is reporting about a display that can show TWO DIMENSIONAL content to up to FOUR PEOPLE!

      Who modded this insightful? This is a report about showing 4 different two dimensional images to four different people at the same time on the same display - not all 4 seeing the same Ars Technica article on one monitor.

    19. Re:# of viewiers? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Don't need 7.1 with good headphones.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    20. Re:# of viewiers? by justdaven · · Score: 1
      IFTFY:

      Seconded! Sitting through crappy reality shows about fat people losing weight is neigh torture. She feels the same way about Stargate. So I compromise and watch her shows.

    21. Re:# of viewiers? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      You are just mad. Hey I hate Microsoft too. I just do not allow it to destroy my ability to think.

      We don't like your sort around here, boy.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    22. Re:# of viewiers? by Dog-Cow · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      You obviously are not involved with a female if you don't think that her version of compromise is getting her way.

    23. Re:# of viewiers? by highlander76 · · Score: 1

      Distract that annoying guy in meetings who always asks inane questions with a video of bunnies and kittens playing, while the rest of the group gets the real presentation. Another plus: he'll get reprimanded for smiling and giggling while you are showing revenue is down 20%.

    24. Re:# of viewiers? by lorenlal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      ummm.... Slashdot?

    25. Re:# of viewiers? by Endo13 · · Score: 1

      Also, think of the application of this in lieu of split-screen for multiplayer gaming. Here's betting the next XBox will incorporate this feature. I can't wait.

      --
      There is no -1 Disagree mod. Slashdot.org/faq defines mod options. USE IT.
    26. Re:# of viewiers? by fizzup · · Score: 2, Funny

      If only we had some kind of Star Trek technology like Geordi Laforge's Visual Instrument and Sensory Organ Replacement (VISOR), but for ears. That way you could isolate what each viewer heard. We could call them Hearing Enhancement/Apportionment Device PHOr New Entertainment Service (HEADPHONES).

    27. Re:# of viewiers? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      Actually that would be 'his version of compromise'. The whole implied criticism was that the GGP was weak for knuckling under. There was no criticism, even implied to my reading, of the female half of the equation. In order for that to be so, there would have to be more exposition, such as the inclusion that she made some contingent demand or that she had declared that she thought compromise was 'getting her way' etc. You're reading too much into this in order to put the GP in a bad light for (reasonably) asserting that the GGP was a weak person for offering a unilateral "compromise". A condition that would be true regardless of the gender(s) involved.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    28. Re:# of viewiers? by demonbug · · Score: 1

      So, at a guess, 4 x 60Hz streams (so a 240 Hz display). Pretty impressive that they can shift the image that quickly, though I guess that might be part of the reason that it is limited to a 20 degree viewing angle - in addition to limits on how far the lens can probably shift the image (coherently), it may also take non-trivial amount of time to shift from one extreme to the other.

      Brings up some more questions... assuming my 4 x 60Hz guess is correct, do they do person 1 eye 1, p1e2, p2e1, p2e2, p1e1,...
      or do they go p1e1, p2e1, p1e2, p2e2, p1e1, and so on? Seems there would be trade-offs either way.

      I can't imagine it being all that effective as there is bound to be significant leakage to the "wrong" eye for each frame (especially for those of us with relatively close-spaced eyes).

    29. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Good luck pushing your fancy 7.1 sound through headphones.

      good thing I have a pair of 7.1 surround headphones...

    30. Re:# of viewiers? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      On the other hand, it only works as long as the people are separated horisontally, and they're still pretty close to the screen; close enough for the angle for each eye to be different enough that you see no more than one projected image. So don't expect this to be viable for any big crowds, or across the room.

      It won't work with a single person either if that person tilts his head. And rock back and forward a bit, or side to side, and you give yourself a major headache, as the optics try to adjust to the shifting angles.

      The only viable way to project 3D images with today's technology is by glasses, or personal projectors that move with you. That probably won't stop this from selling like hotcakes or Wii, and there may even be a 3rd party market for devices designed to keep your head absolutely still.

    31. Re:# of viewiers? by kjart · · Score: 1

      Seconded! Sitting through crappy reality shows about fat people losing weight is neigh torture.

      Sounds like those fat people might actually be horses.

    32. Re:# of viewiers? by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      This would be an great prospect for those in that situation, how would you channel your audio? Different headphones for each viewing angle, directionalized speakers?

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    33. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, maybe you could enjoy it. I personally can't stand using headphones for a full legth movie.

    34. Re:# of viewiers? by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately Fred won't be able to participate in the reading, damned fifth wheel inhibitor on your monitor...

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    35. Re:# of viewiers? by cayenne8 · · Score: 1
      "You obviously are not involved with a female if you don't think that her version of compromise is getting her way."

      Obviously you need to grow a pair of cajones...and tell said female how it is going to be.

      If she doesn't like it...there's another one out there.

      :)

      Ok, seriously, compromise has to go both ways. Otherwise, you're gonna be miserable if you subjugate yourself to her all the time. You pick your battles. Let's face it...most of the little shit isn't worth that much to argue about because it isn't anything YOU really care about that much. But if it is something YOU find important, put your foot down. They didn't used to refer to it as "being the man of the family" for nothing. And besides, if you let her walk all over you, she won't respect you...and next thing you know, she'll be leaving you. I'm not saying be an asshole, but, being a doormat isn't going to win and keep her in the long run.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    36. Re:# of viewiers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So use two TVs?

      The problem with two shows on a single TV is sound.

    37. Re:# of viewiers? by SleazyRidr · · Score: 1

      My compromise is to go outside and smoke a fine cigar while she watches whatever crap she wants. Then while she's busy studying I take some time with the TV to myself.

    38. Re:# of viewiers? by Psaakyrn · · Score: 1

      Was more thinking of split screen gaming, so people can stop looking over each other's shoulders..

    39. Re:# of viewiers? by drkim · · Score: 1

      No, 4 different full screen shows.

      So, for example:
      You're at home with the wife. You set up the screen so that the hard-core pr0n is sent only to your eyes and and anyone else (i.e. the wife) sees a "Golden Girls" re-run.

      As long as she doesn't how the screen works you're safe. Of course, she may wonder why you're getting so excited watching Bea Arthur...

    40. Re:# of viewiers? by drkim · · Score: 1

      ...rock back and forward a bit, or side to side, and you give yourself a major headache... ...there may even be a 3rd party market for devices designed to keep your head absolutely still.

      No... The screen has built in tracking cameras, so you don't have to hold your head still, and if you move it steers the image to you. And remember, it doesn't have to hit your eye exactly, it can have plenty of overlap up/down left/right as long as the two don't overlap across your P.D. (about 55mm)

    41. Re:# of viewiers? by drkim · · Score: 1

      Yeah, you only have two earholes.

      And there's no reason the production model of this couldn't include four (color-coded) wireless headphones, that could be fed by the four discreet video streams.

    42. Re:# of viewiers? by Shrike82 · · Score: 1

      Bloody hell I didn't even think about that. It would finally make it possible to play a first person shooter against someone in the same room as you without them automatically knowing where you are. Marvellous.

      --
      You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
    43. Re:# of viewiers? by arth1 · · Score: 1

      No... The screen has built in tracking cameras, so you don't have to hold your head still, and if you move it steers the image to you.

      Read the post you replied to again -- that is actually the very point about it giving you a headache, because this is a reactive technique, always lagging behind.
      Which is why there may be a market for 3rd party Poeesque implements to keep your head still.

    44. Re:# of viewiers? by Jeffrey_Walsh+VA · · Score: 1

      I agree: the post was not particularly insightful. (Its now rated funny which was obviously the main intent.) I read the article and knew it meant 'different images', but felt it wasn't clear. I like Ars and their writing is usually better than mediocre. This sentence was lifted straight from the MIT Technology Review article (linked by Ars under "Further Reading"). Those geeks may be smart, but perhaps not so eloquent.

    45. Re:# of viewiers? by Shortgeek · · Score: 1

      What about the audio track? They can't aim audio that precisely.

      --
      Note to self: Make a funny sig.
    46. Re:# of viewiers? by drkim · · Score: 1

      Wireless headphones, my friend, wireless headphones...

      (and don't forget - if the wife grabs your headphones, be sure to flick that little switch over to: CHANNEL 2) !!

    47. Re:# of viewiers? by drkim · · Score: 1

      Lag (or latency) wouldn't really much of a problem on this system.

      In gaming, fast current GPUs have no trouble spitting out images at 240fps, and rendering out 120 fps stereo, or even two streams of 60 fps. This system needs to be far less 'reactive' than the mouse the gamer pushes across the table. The mouse position has to be precisely read and fed to the system which then precisely generates and renders the FOV and aimpoint.

      This system doesn't concern itself with any of that. It's using the continuous tracking information it's getting from it's on-board cameras to keep the left eye and right eye displays steered to where your eyes are, plus some overscan, in case you do move your head around. The only unacceptable overlap would be if your left eye saw right eye info and vice versa.

      As it gets the left eye and right eye streams from the GPU (or media player, or whatever) it sends that stream to the appropriate display.

      Any motion latency would have far more impact to the gamer moving his mouse and not getting a fluid GPU response, than this system, which just has to dish out left and right (with an overscan cone.)

      Remember (if you read it) the FOV on this system can also be widened to have it display like a normal TV (one stream, in 2D, of course.)

  3. cool idea but why? by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, I'll admit it is a cool idea and cool tech. The thing about 3D that always drove me nuts were those glasses the never fit well over another pair of glasses so this is a step up but I'm still left asking, 'Why?'

    I can't be the only one who just doesn't see the point of 3D and something like 10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.

    --
    "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    1. Re:cool idea but why? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      I can deal with non interactive 3D, it's when the games begin the gimmicky decline to 3D interaction that will totally screw me. Lack of depth perception will make those sorts of games unplayable for those of us who are stereoscopically challenged.

    2. Re:cool idea but why? by Combatso · · Score: 5, Insightful

      10% of the population can't even see in 3D to begin with.

      10% of men are homosexuals, but people still sell pictures of boobs

    3. Re:cool idea but why? by Anne_Nonymous · · Score: 2, Funny

      >> those glasses the never fit well over another pair of glasses

      That's what 3D contacts are for. Well, that and freaking people out in the supermarket.

    4. Re:cool idea but why? by nathan+s · · Score: 1

      Color differences are something else a small proportion of the population has trouble seeing, so I guess everything should be in black and white?

    5. Re:cool idea but why? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with you. I was a bit confused by this sudden surge of 3D movies and tech in the last year. 3D has been around for so long, why is it suddenly being marketed so heavily now? I also do not see any real benefit from it; it seems to me like a silly gimmick. I am reminded of the Wii; motion sensor technology had also been around for years and years, yet the Wii used it to sell a ton of consoles to casuals (and yet...who still plays on their Wii? For me, the novelty has worn off, and I am back to playing FPSs on my PC or PS3...except for the occasional drunken game of Mario Kart with my friends).

      I, for one, will not be buying a 3D display/TV/monitor anytime soon. I think it is a fad that will pass (3D glasses or not). I did have a look at the new LED TVs the other day though, those look fantastic. Might save up for one.

    6. Re:cool idea but why? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      What do you mean "why"? The point is to have 3D consumer media, e.g. 3DTV, 3D movies, more immersive* games (3D display + Natal?), etc.

      And if 10% can't see in 3D (which is obviously not true - they can see in 3D, they're simply not fooled by current displays), that leaves 90% of the population. Saying that is useless to sell 3D displays because of 10% is like saying there's no point in selling tools for right handed people.

    7. Re:cool idea but why? by Donniedarkness · · Score: 2, Informative

      And 10% of all makeup statistics are within 8% accuracy (90% of the time)

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    8. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're a witless tool.

    9. Re:cool idea but why? by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      According to Wikipedia, something like 18% of the population has some form of colorblindness, should we have not bothered with color TVs? Your argument is idiotic Ludditism. Just because you don't care about it, why do you feel the need to piss in everyone else's Cheerios?

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    10. Re:cool idea but why? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In most populations (i.e. not San Francisco, Brighton, etc.) it is more like 2-5%

      But your point still stands.

    11. Re:cool idea but why? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Stupidest comment ever on /.? Not sure. Just would like to know where you all think this one ranks.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    12. Re:cool idea but why? by kalirion · · Score: 2, Interesting

      10% of men are homosexuals, but people still sell pictures of boobs

      Are you implying that lesbians aren't interested in boobs?

    13. Re:cool idea but why? by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Why? Lack of depth perception doesn't make you incapable of taking part in real life, does it? Lack of depth perception doesn't make me unable to play modern 3D games even though 3D displays do make it easier to do thing like judge the location of magic effects being thrown at my character in games like WoW? Is it that you, presently, enjoy an artificially leveled playing field in 3D games since everyone with depth perception is stuck without it's advantage? If that's the case then sorry, but we're not going to handicap the rest of the world because of your personal problem.

      I hope that, someday, modern science will develop the technology to allow people without depth perception to gain it's advantage. I feel the same way about the ~18% of the population (according to Wikipedia) that suffers from color blindness and can't take full advantage of color TV/Computer Screens (for whom we didn't just not bother to invent color TV). They've already been able to work miracles for deaf people with the invention if cochlear implants. Rather than complain about technological advancement and advocating for the rest of the world to play with one hand tied behind their backs in order to accommodate you, perhaps you should direct your ire/complaints towards the medical community to motivate them to find a cure for your problem.

      Sorry if I come off a little harsh here. I'm, just, a little tired of seeing people whine about how much of a "waste of time" 3D technology is just because they, personally, are incapable of using it (because they are part of the small percent of the population that, either, has depth perception problems or get headaches from the present implementations). In reality, they are a very small percentage of the population but a, disproportionally, louder voice of complainers online.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    14. Re:cool idea but why? by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      Dose The ability to play your PS3 on your 52" screen while the wife watches crappy chick flick and the 2 kids are not arguing about what to watch worth it to you? Or how about having a friend over and playing against each other sitting right next to each other and not seeing the screen of the other guy? I am SO FUCKING GETTING ONE.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    15. Re:cool idea but why? by beelsebob · · Score: 4, Funny

      No, he's implying lesbians aren't men.

    16. Re:cool idea but why? by Combatso · · Score: 1

      I dunno, I could ask around for you

    17. Re:cool idea but why? by GameMaster · · Score: 1

      Oh, it's even better than that. According to Wikipedia, it's around ~18% of the population that has some form of color blindness. That dwarfs his, apparently made up, statistics on how many people lack depth perception. Not only that, unlike the switch to 3D technology, the switch from black & white to color, inherently, degraded the quality of the shows for color blind people. Before color TV, content makers used all sorts of tricks to enhance the contrast of the black & white image and make the scene better. Some of these tricks included using things like makeup, for the actors, which look horrid in color but increased contrast. Or, background/prop colors, chosen for the same reason, that look odd in color. All of these tricks, which would benefit color blind people, had to be abandoned when color TV was introduced.

      --

      Rules of Conduct:
      #1 - The DM is always right.
      #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
    18. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hereby ask for their share, for the greater good of course.

    19. Re:cool idea but why? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Fair points, though they do not much apply to me:
      1) My partner would rather join me playing PS3 (she especially likes LBP). Though mostly we are PC gamers, both of us.
      2)Don't have kids.
      3) Last point is valid, though as mentioned I am more likely to be playing FPS's on a PC, and thus the screen problem is not an issue.

    20. Re:cool idea but why? by Man+Eating+Duck · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Way OT, but that reminds me of a quote from James Randi about coming out of the closet. From the end of this interview snippet:

      And people often will say, "But you named your car Sophia, after Sophia Loren." A little blue Miata, a beautiful little jobbie. And they said, "Well, you keep on talking about Sophia Loren." And I say, "Yes. You see, I'm gay, but I'm not blind."

      --
      Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
    21. Re:cool idea but why? by vegiVamp · · Score: 1

      No need to degrade yourself, I've seen a lot worse than your comment.

      --
      What a depressingly stupid machine.
    22. Re:cool idea but why? by radtea · · Score: 1

      Ok, I'll admit the automobile is a cool idea and cool tech. The thing about horses that always drove me nuts were those saddles the never fit well so this is a step up but I'm still left asking, 'Why?'

      Automobiles were around for about 100 years before Ford's first assembly line, and were pretty much "cool tech, cool idea, but huh?" Then the bugs were ironed out and they became reliable and cheap enough to do some modestly useful things.

      I can't see how 3D-TV is going to do anything comparable, but I'm not so arrogant to believe that my inability to see something means that it won't happen. Maybe it'll revolutionize design engineering, as we are still doing 3D CAD on 2D displays...

      The really important thing about this technology is suumed up by the statement: "the idea isn't new, but the required CPU power is now affordable and small enough to pull it off on a large scale."

      Welcome to the next industrial revolution: embedded intelligence. We are only just beginning to mine the possibilities inherent in cheap, really powerful, embedded processors. They've been thrown at automobiles, but there are a zillion other applications waiting to be born.

      --
      Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
    23. Re:cool idea but why? by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      Or more to the point: 10% of people are color blind, but somehow they still sell color TVs.

      .... or are those 10% of color-blind people only in some color-blind Metropolis (... and where would that be...)?

    24. Re:cool idea but why? by tlhIngan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I have to agree with you. I was a bit confused by this sudden surge of 3D movies and tech in the last year. 3D has been around for so long, why is it suddenly being marketed so heavily now? I also do not see any real benefit from it; it seems to me like a silly gimmick.

      Because people aren't going to theatres anymore. Whether by piracy or the rise of the home theatre, the movie studios need something to justify people going out to watch a movie rather than waiting for it on Blu-Ray and DVD. IMAX has 3D for what, at least a decade and a half now, but IMAX screens are few and far between (due to technical requirements that are quite onerous and limit seating capacity). But a regular theatre can be cheaply outfitted for 3D (and since they had to renovate anyhow for digital movie projection, it's a 2-for-1 shot).

      The reason the tech is filtering down to home equipment is the same - people see it in theatres and (a few) want it in their homes as well. That, and there's no real new tech in TVs these days - you have your 240Hz refresh LCDs that get bigger and bigger every year and cheaper, but it's pretty much nothing new or innovative in TVs. Sure you have quad-1080p coming out, but with no programming in that format, it's not terribly useful at the moment. But people have 3D content available (somewhat), and they'll hopefully be wanting more.

      Now, I see it as a gimmick as long as you need glasses for them because well, those glasses suck if you multitask. If you sit in front of the TV and watch it, they're fine, but if you read a book with a TV on, or do other things, it really sucks. And the proportion of people who don't multitask is getting smaller. But 3D movies, and 3D gaming is likely to take off since in both cases the user tends to put their full attention on the screen. Casual TV viewing, probably not.

    25. Re:cool idea but why? by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      It would be up in the top 10% of stupid comments, definitely.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    26. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I hope this means we are replacing all car analogies with boob analogies!

    27. Re:cool idea but why? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1
      You raise fair points, and I can see now the justification for going forward with 3D technology (though 3D PC gaming still seems far-fetched to me, since it is such a relatively small screen, I think 3D would make it too "busy").
      I must pick you up on one point:

      That, and there's no real new tech in TVs these days

      On the contrary, LED TVs are making their way into the consumer market, and are mightily impressive, though still very expensive. The picture they produce are brilliant. I think my next TV will be an LED (though not a 3D one).

    28. Re:cool idea but why? by AusIV · · Score: 4, Informative

      10% of men are colorblind, which boils down to about 5% of the general population. That said, the vast majority of colorblind people still see color, we just don't see it quite right. This gallery demonstrates how people with different types of colorblindness see various pictures.

    29. Re:cool idea but why? by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 1

      There are so many issues with social constructs that it's hard to get a reliable picture of the matter. Places that are more tolerant such as San Francisco are artificially high, because they not only are catalytic in more people living openly with regard to sexuality, but they attract people from places that are intolerant, decreasing natural presence in those places. And in those intolerant places people are of course less likely to endure public disapproval about living openly, which drives perceived numbers down. So, you have to deal with the flow of people from intolerant to tolerant places, and the socially positive and negative pressures to live openly in each place respectively. I imagine that there is still enough denial and secret lives out there that any general average is probably lower than the reality. There are still many parts of the world where homosexuals are killed, if not by the government in places like Uganda in Iran, then by the violence of random bigots.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    30. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Apparently you didn't finish reading the sentence you're cribbing that figure from:

      While normally rare, achromatopsia is very common on the island of Pingelap, a part of the Pohnpei state, Federated States of Micronesia, where it is called maskun: about 10% of the population there has it, and 30% are unaffected carriers. The island was devastated by a storm in the 18th century, and one of the few male survivors carried a gene for achromatopsia; the population is now several thousand.

      Monochromancy is very rare. In general populations only about 8% of males and 0.5% of females have any form of colorblindness. Most of which is not even complete colorblindness but rather color weakness.

    31. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if 10% can't see in 3D (which is obviously not true - they can see in 3D, they're simply not fooled by current displays), that leaves 90% of the population. Saying that is useless to sell 3D displays because of 10% is like saying there's no point in selling tools for right handed people.

      I don't know if it's quite as high as 10% but there are a large number of people who only see with one eye at a time and don't make a composite 3D image like the rest of us. My ex used to be able to select at will which eye to look at something with, though obviously one was dominant.

    32. Re:cool idea but why? by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      Even if those of us who:

      * can see the 3D display fine
      * don't get headaches, dizziness, or other symptoms that I have seen complaints about
      * don't mind having to wear the glasses at all when viewing 3D content (besides, I've hated headphones for years and still use them all of the time)
      * genuinely enjoy the 3D effect when it is applied appropriately

      make up a tiny fraction of total television owners, that is still a shitload of potential sales of TVs, set-top boxes, glasses, and content. Why wouldn't they roll with it?

    33. Re:cool idea but why? by Deosyne · · Score: 1

      Fair enough. My friend must have 1080p, 7.1 surround, etc, etc, while I've been perfectly content with my 27" CRT that probably doesn't even cover 480p. But I will be getting a 3D ready television in the next couple of months. My friend is sticking with what he has as he doesn't give a shit about 3D.

      Different strokes. It's nice having options.

    34. Re:cool idea but why? by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Shit, does the cosmetics industry know about these glaring irregularities in their makeup statistics? I know Maybelline will be very interested at the very least!

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    35. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd like to teach that gallery creator the concept of "caching"

    36. Re:cool idea but why? by Merls+the+Sneaky · · Score: 1

      To clarify I was referring to the gimmick that is to emerge where one would be forced to interact outside the screen space. Push button in stereoscopic position z three feet in front of the screen. Kinect will probably make this sort of interaction plausible.

      I was in no way suggesting these things should not be made I was just lamenting that I and others like me would be left out. As I am somewhat of a gamer it does make me a little sad that I will miss out on a lot of games and I hope that "traditional" games don't die off altogether.

    37. Re:cool idea but why? by macshit · · Score: 1

      And if 10% can't see in 3D (which is obviously not true - they can see in 3D, they're simply not fooled by current displays)

      Not entirely sure what you intended to say, but I have no stereo depth perception, even in the real world. I can still perceive depth to some degree, somewhat more indirectly, by means of other visual cues, e.g. focus changes or moving my head/body and observing the relative motion of objects, but "stereo faux 3D" ala avatar is completely useless for me.

      I'm a bit skeptical whether it's worth the cost, even for people that can perceive stereo 3D correctly, but I really don't have a good basis on which to make that judgment.

      --
      We live, as we dream -- alone....
    38. Re:cool idea but why? by icebraining · · Score: 1

      I can still perceive depth to some degree, somewhat more indirectly, by means of other visual cues, e.g. focus changes or moving my head/body and observing the relative motion of objects, but "stereo faux 3D" ala avatar is completely useless for me.

      As I said, you're not fooled by those displays, but displays that do head tracking (when they can develop one that doesn't require a wiimote hanging from your neck) will allow you to employ those visual clues in virtual 3D environments. It also requires some image post-processing to enable those cues from normal frames, but that can be done.

      As for if it's worth the cost, like everything it'll come down as the early adopters get it and competition starts to pick up - just like any other technology.

    39. Re:cool idea but why? by sznupi · · Score: 1

      I take it that whether or not one sees differences between "normal" vision and any given deficiency example is a good & straightforward test for that particular type?

      Meh, boring vision for me... ;/

      Because, you know, it appears like some of them (especially all types of only "...reduced") are very similar to color grading in many modern movies, supposedly looking more aesthetically pleasing that way / you are able to see whole world that way all the time ;)

      --
      One that hath name thou can not otter
    40. Re:cool idea but why? by mavasplode · · Score: 1

      They just look like them.

      --
      ACTUAL SIZE!!!
    41. Re:cool idea but why? by drkim · · Score: 1

      I don't know how they sell speakers either, since there are deaf people on the planet...

    42. Re:cool idea but why? by Donniedarkness · · Score: 1

      Ack. I blame it on long work hours! The really funny thing, though, is that I still got modded up.

      --
      Earn a % of cash back from Newegg, Tiger Direct, Walmart.com, and more: http://www.mrrebates.com?refid=458505
    43. Re:cool idea but why? by Midnight's+Shadow · · Score: 1

      Thank you. An intelligent response to the why - to make money.

      I appreciate the answer and no I'm not being snarky or sarcastic. I do find it amusing that I got more comments for this 'dumb' post then I did for comments that were rated 4-5.

      --
      "God is a comedian playing to an audience too afraid to laugh. " -Voltaire
    44. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Amazing Randi is gay??!

    45. Re:cool idea but why? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Amazing Randi is gay??!

      Who cares if he is or isn't? He's still amazing.

  4. Head tracking required by Rockoon · · Score: 1

    It seems to me that if they can do reliable head tracking (which seems to be a requirement), then it also enables this technique which I find much more impressive than simple tweaking of focal distance.

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
    1. Re:Head tracking required by Jorl17 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the guy who made that *is* working for Microsoft now. Check his homepage: http://johnnylee.net/

      --
      Have you heard about SoylentNews?
  5. Next is 3D with no screen by aicrules · · Score: 2, Funny

    Once Ben Affleck gets ahold of one of these, it's only a matter of time before another company announces a 3D screen minus the screen.

  6. Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

    Come on, no screenshots?

  7. RTFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Microsoft's prototype display, however, can deliver 3D video to two viewers at the same time by presenting different images to their left and right eyes (one video for each)

  8. The difference between Microsoft & Apple by psergiu · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Microsoft: Here's our new tech. We have a single working prototype in the lab and maybe in 2-3 years (if ever) you will be able to buy a watered down version with less features than this one.

    Apple: Here's our new tech. You can get-it from the Apple Store starting now.

    Microsoft's tech might be cooler but guess who will have more sales ... By the time Microsoft would get this to market, there will be dozens of low-quality chinese knock-offs at 1/2-1/4 of the price but compatible with each-other and Microsoft's screens will use some kind of new and incompatible protocol.

    I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.

    --
    1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    1. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      MS shows that stuff to make people think they are innovative.

    2. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by PerfectionLost · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Apple is a bit more like--You can get it next June in the apple store, and oh man is it going to be broken for the first couple releases but we'll take your money anyways.

    3. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by TheCycoONE · · Score: 2, Interesting

      My theory has long been that Microsoft hires people into these research positions to prevent them from coming up with something innovative for someone else that might disrupt their business strategy. These people are then given a decent salary to do whatever they want on whatever schedule; and as a bonus when they come up with something cool Microsoft could show it off for PR purposes (but never actually attempt to manufacture said item because it would just take away from their serious work.)

    4. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.

      To raise investor interest and increase stock value.

    5. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Arkham · · Score: 1

      Apple is a bit more like--You can get it next June in the apple store, and oh man is it going to be broken for the first couple releases but we'll take your money anyways.

      Funny, as I type this on my iPad, which has been flawless, I have to disagree with you.

      --
      - Vincit qui patitur.
    6. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Funny, as I type this on my iPad, which has been flawless, I have to disagree with you.

      Mine hasn't. I tried the iScale App, where you step on your iPad and it tells you how much you weigh. I've been having problems with my iPad ever since.

    7. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by tophermeyer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      MS is just spreading the word about their new tech much earlier in the development cycle. Apple knows that it already has its fanbois standing in line to get whatever it is they come out with next, they don't have to worry about generating interest 2-3 years ahead of time.

      MS likes the image of itself as an R&D innovator (whether or not they actually are, thats the image they like to portray). It is in their best interests for everyone to see their projects as the develop. Think of all the press time and attention they've gotten over Natal (now Kinect). That is free publicity, just for being open during their development process.

    8. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

      Are you also sitting at a Starbucks with your nice hot cup of Joe writing the next literary master piece.

    9. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 1

      Microsoft's tech might be cooler but guess who will have more sales ...

      That's interesting, because even as I browse the macrumours site I don't see anything to suggest Apple is working on a competitor for this. Even their "Hyper Real" 3d display is totally different than this.

      I'm not saying Microsoft is going to do well with this, it could be yet another flop *cough*zune*cough*. But I don't think Apple is going to be the one dominating the sales in this market either.

    10. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Dishevel · · Score: 1

      After we get it working though we will team up with Sony and Downgrade the shit you bought till it is worthless though.

      --
      Why is it so hard to only have politicians for a few years, then have them go away?
    11. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by KnownIssues · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You're missing the point here. Microsoft is not a hardware company, unlike Apple, which is both hardware and software. Microsoft is a software company that invests in hardware research to create Proofs-Of-Concept to convince other hardware companies to build the hardware that Microsoft's NextProduct will depend on for cool-whiz-bang features.

      When Microsoft sells a mouse, it's because it's a five-button mouse before five-button mice have caught on and it's not even because it's the first five-button mouse, it's because it defines the specs that Microsoft wants all the other hardware vendors to follow, not because it's innovative but because it makes the hardware work consistently on its OS. When Microsoft sells a keyboard, it's because it wants hardware makers to add that useless Windows key.

    12. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by ProppaT · · Score: 1

      The difference is that Microsoft has a research lab that tries to create and innovate new technologies. Apple has a room full of designers that they have working on making existing technology look slick.

      --
      Wise men say, "Forgiveness is divine, but never pay full price for late pizza."
    13. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by tophermeyer · · Score: 1

      Having read this, I regret that I already posted elsewhere and cannot mod you up. That is a very Insightful point (see what I did there?).

    14. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by psergiu · · Score: 1

      Ok, not a hardware company.

      Microsoft:Here's our new tech, the next version of Windows which will have a brand-new filesystem called WinFS ...

      --
      1% APY, No fees, Online Bank https://captl1.co/2uIErYq Don't let your $$$ sit in a no-interest acct.
    15. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by GF678 · · Score: 1

      I don't understand why Microsoft even bothers showing off all those very-cool-but-you-can't-have-them products.

      Yeah! I mean this fancy Project Natal (Kinect) crap they've been working on, that'll never come to fruition!

      Oh wait...

      It only takes one example to ruin your FUD.

    16. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not really.

    17. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by ArsenneLupin · · Score: 1
      That should serve you right for getting your apps from elsewhere than the app store.

      You know, Apple just wants to protect the user from malicious apps such as your iScale app...

    18. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Sechr+Nibw · · Score: 1

      Cup of Joe? I think you mean Cup of Steve. He's looking for someone to share it with..

    19. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by PPalmgren · · Score: 1

      Well, one of the big hurdles to 3DTV in the home for the common TV user is definitely its current inconveniences. Current 3D TVs either require you to sit in a specific spot or wear glasses. This solves the biggest annoyance. Now they need to get the TV up to 360-480hz to make 3D watchable by 3-4 people and they are sitting on the next big home entertainment item.

      I personally see it as a very big deal.

    20. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...

    21. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Rogerborg · · Score: 1
      Hitachi: It's just super cute how you round eyes get excited over last year's technology.

      Actually, that's a lie. I was working with Japanese 3D phones in 2008, never mind 2009.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    22. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Microsoft: Here's our new tech. We have a single working prototype in the lab and maybe in 2-3 years (if ever) you will be able to buy a watered down version with less features than this one.

      Apple: Here's our new tech. It's the exact same thing that's been available in other devices for years, but it's we've polished it until it's REALLY SHINY and it is magic and it will make people love you and we'll keep marketing it until you agree.

      FTFY

    23. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That Windows key is very useful if you're using a generic third-party keyboard with a Mac...

    24. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but you see, the iPad is really a worthless piece of shit. Its basically a device that serves a bunch of functions that can be done with much smaller, more convenient devices. The iPad does nothing new that isn't already doable with either a smartphone or a netbook, so why bother? Oh thats right, Apple fanbois need their fix.

    25. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by karnal · · Score: 1

      Cup of Jobs is what you're looking for.

      --
      Karnal
    26. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      odd, mine refuses to render many websites properly, and safari crashes even more than ie. Of course, the refusal is due to flash, but seriously, safari should not crash every 20 minutes. It's a pretty useless blackberry to me.

    27. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by LynnwoodRooster · · Score: 1

      Microsoft: Here's our new tech. We have a single working prototype in the lab and maybe in 2-3 years (if ever) you will be able to buy a watered down version with less features than this one.

      Apple: Here's our new tech. You can get-it from the Apple Store starting now.

      Of course you can only use Apple-approved media, bought from the iTunes store, and developed only with Apple-approved tools by Apple-approved partners.

      And it does cost three times what comparable systems from other vendors cost, but ours is sleek and black and shiny, even if it has trailing-edge hardware for your price.

      Oh, and we'll charge you the equivalent of a new product with your 3 years of AppleCare, so when you want to upgrade you've already bought a new unit. But we'll charge you for that new unit anyway.

      And we reserve the right to break compatibility with all your purchases at any time, for any reason, and then over-charge you for new 'features' which replicate the purchases we broke.

      Not to mention that your product will be obsolete and not compatible with future versions in about 3 years, no longer supported in about 4 years.

      Most importantly you'll have to buy this TV from Blockbuster stores only, and it will only work on the Blockbuster instant movie network because they're paying us a lot of money to work on their substandard network.

      But it does have a shiny Apple logo, so your friends will know you are "in the know".

      --
      Browsing at +1 - no ACs, I ignore their posts. So refreshing!
    28. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by X.25 · · Score: 1

      Funny, as I type this on my iPad, which has been flawless, I have to disagree with you.

      Because it is working fine for you, it must be working fine for everyone else.

      Flawless logic.

    29. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem is that Microsoft is innovating and these other companies are reverse engineering to call it their own, and beating Microsoft to release. Apple did just that with their Widget implementation: Microsoft previewed it in Longhorn, and then Apple put it into whatever version of OS X (10.3 or 10.4, I forget) as the "Dashboard." To be fair, they did it better (in my opinion), but it also works better in their system (every application is floating already).

      Amusingly, then Apple (and especially their fans) attacked Microsoft for stealing the feature.

      I won't pretend that Microsoft hasn't taken ideas, but they clearly hurt themselves with the public acknowledgement of the new technologies far in the future. I hate Apple's secrecy, but it clearly helps them release innovative products that are at least mostly new. Microsoft releases innovative products that have been, as you pointed out, copied already and in some cases improved upon. Apple is probably building it just as long, but they have cut-throat policies preventing leaks (let alone, the company actually announcing it).

    30. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A bukake!

    31. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      >useless Windows key
      If you don't know how helpful Windows-key shortcuts are (and similar mappings for a Linux window manager), I really don't think it's Microsoft that is the one that's clueless.

    32. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah but you see, the iPad is really a worthless piece of shit. Its basically a device that serves a bunch of functions that can be done with much smaller, more convenient devices.

      As an owner, I say you're full of shit. I have never used a device which is like an iPad, and which is such a game changer. There simply isn't anything on the market like it.

      The iPad does nothing new that isn't already doable with either a smartphone or a netbook, so why bother?

      No single thing that it does is 'new' -- it just better at it. A smart phone is too small, and a netbook is still tied to the keyboard and mouse paradigm of a laptop computer. This is the first novel way of using a computer I've seen in my lifetime.

      With the iPad, I sit in a comfortable chair and read it like a book. The next time I go on vacation, it'll be my ebook reader, music player, portable movies, and web surfing device. For what I'm using it for, I wouldn't have wanted a netbook, and if that was my only option, I wouldn't have bought anything. Having a netbook so I can run Windows isn't what I wanted. I find the form factor about as convenient as you can get.

      For those of us who bought one, it's actually a really nice device.

      Oh thats right, Apple fanbois need their fix.

      Why is everyone assuming that everyone buying one of these is a drooling fanboi who would buy anything if Apple was selling it? I've never owned an Apple computer before, but so far I'm finding the iPad to be a dream to use, and I'm really enjoying the product. Apple's reputation of making a product with a nice user experience seems quite justified from my experience with my iPods and now my iPad.

      The screeching idiots who are slagging it left and right are welcome to their own opinion, but it seems to be largely an ill-informed one. A smart phone or a netbook simply aren't the same kind of device. And, I won't be using my iPad the same way I'd use either of those if I was interested in having them.

      Just because you can't fathom why someone would like that particular doesn't make it crap. It makes it a product you don't want. For some of us, it really is the shizzle.

    33. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by AtomicOrange · · Score: 1

      Are you also sitting at a Starbucks with your hot cup frappe-whappe-crappe-chino writing the next literary master piece.

      There I fixed that for you.

      --
      "What is there a tank on the boat? WHY IS THERE A TANK ON THE BOAT?!?" L4D2
    34. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      Really? Let me know when you can run Flash games on it. Or install non-Apple-sanitized apps. Or multi-task. Or have expandable storage. Or USB.

      My paperweight works flawlessly, too.

    35. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Nice... very nice.

    36. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

      awesome!!

    37. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      that useless Windows key

      Actually, I use the windows key all the time. It's especially useful un Windows 7, where you can use it to get to the 'Search' box. Want a calculator? Windows > 'calc' > Enter. Python shell? Windows > 'python' > Enter.

      Linux distros use it in lots of (arcane) shortcuts too these days; they call it the super key.

    38. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 1

      Yeah, unfortunately that link has nothing to do with, well, anything. But it does have "3d" somewhere in it, so I assume that's what confused you and made you think they were anything alike.

    39. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by Rogerborg · · Score: 1

      Good point: I should believe you rather than the evidence of my own eyes. Thanks for clearing that up!

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    40. Re:The difference between Microsoft & Apple by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      Microhard

  9. can't wait for 4d now? that's just perfect by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the real 'trick' is to pick your pocket, & leave you believing something. for example; you're happy, & your needs are being met.

    the corepirate nazi illuminati is always hunting that patch of red on almost everyones' neck. if they cannot find yours (greed, fear ego etc...) then you can go starve. that's their platform now. they do pull A LOT of major strings.

    never a better time for all of us to consult with/trust in our creators. the lights are coming up rapidly all over now. see you there?

    greed, fear & ego (in any order) are unprecedented evile's primary weapons. those, along with deception & coercion, helps most of us remain (unwittingly?) dependent on its' life0cidal hired goons' agenda. most of our dwindling resources are being squandered on the 'wars', & continuation of the billionerrors stock markup FraUD/pyramid schemes. nobody ever mentions the real long term costs of those debacles in both life & any notion of prosperity for us, or our children. not to mention the abuse of the consciences of those of us who still have one, & the terminal damage to our atmosphere (see also: manufactured 'weather', hot etc...). see you on the other side of it? the lights are coming up all over now. the fairytail is winding down now. let your conscience be your guide. you can be more helpful than you might have imagined. we now have some choices. meanwhile; don't forget to get a little more oxygen on your brain, & look up in the sky from time to time, starting early in the day. there's lots going on up there.

    "The current rate of extinction is around 10 to 100 times the usual background level, and has been elevated above the background level since the Pleistocene. The current extinction rate is more rapid than in any other extinction event in earth history, and 50% of species could be extinct by the end of this century. While the role of humans is unclear in the longer-term extinction pattern, it is clear that factors such as deforestation, habitat destruction, hunting, the introduction of non-native species, pollution and climate change have reduced biodiversity profoundly.' (wiki)

    "I think the bottom line is, what kind of a world do you want to leave for your children," Andrew Smith, a professor in the Arizona State University School of Life Sciences, said in a telephone interview. "How impoverished we would be if we lost 25 percent of the world's mammals," said Smith, one of more than 100 co-authors of the report. "Within our lifetime hundreds of species could be lost as a result of our own actions, a frightening sign of what is happening to the ecosystems where they live," added Julia Marton-Lefevre, IUCN director general. "We must now set clear targets for the future to reverse this trend to ensure that our enduring legacy is not to wipe out many of our closest relatives."--

    "The wealth of the universe is for me. Every thing is explicable and practical for me .... I am defeated all the time; yet to victory I am born." --emerson

    no need to confuse 'religion' with being a spiritual being. our soul purpose here is to care for one another. failing that, we're simply passing through (excess baggage) being distracted/consumed by the guaranteed to fail illusionary trappings of man'kind'. & recently (about 10,000 years ago) it was determined that hoarding & excess by a few, resulted in negative consequences for all.

    consult with/trust in your creators. providing more than enough of everything for everyone (without any distracting/spiritdead personal gain motives), whilst badtolling unprecedented evile, using an unlimited supply of newclear power, since/until forever. see you there?

    "If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land." )one does not need not to agree whois in charge to grasp the notion that there may be some assistance available to us(

    boeing, boeing, gone.

  10. Works for one person... by SiaFhir · · Score: 0, Redundant

    "The 3D display uses a camera to track viewers so that it knows where to steer the light"

    But what if there are more than one person around the display? How does it steer the light then?

    Autostereoscopy has more promise I think. Philips has done it.

    1. Re:Works for one person... by SiaFhir · · Score: 1

      Woops, guess I should've RTFA. K, so it works for two people, works as 2-D for four people... useless for >4 people? We're supposed to be excited, why? Stereoscopy would work for any number of people, rather than a limited number cameras to watch a couple pairs of eyes.

    2. Re:Works for one person... by baxissimo · · Score: 1

      You just track more than one pair of eyes. I believe the device is capable of displaying more than 2 views. There's sure to be some limit, though. Probably won't ever be able to have the whole extended family crowded around the screen with tech like this. But 4 or 6 eyes shouldn't be too much of a problem.

    3. Re:Works for one person... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Read the article. Works for up to four separate targets - 2 pairs of eyes viewing 3D or 4 pairs of eyes viewing 2D.

    4. Re:Works for one person... by bipbop · · Score: 1

      This is still stereoscopy. Specifically, it's called autostereoscopy (sometimes "auto-stereoscopy" with a hyphen). I don't know why the article fails to include the common term that has been used to refer to this technology for decades (that is, since the mid-80s when it was invented).

    5. Re:Works for one person... by RightSaidFred99 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, I mean this thing doesn't work for 1000 people right out of the gate?! Useless! And this fusion discovery they just made, it only produces 1% more energy than it takes in?! Useless!!

  11. 3D, What's it like? by Techman83 · · Score: 1

    Seriously, what is it like? As someone who suffers from a condition known as Strabismus, all 3D movies tend to do is make my eyes water.

    All the big chains in Aus are promoting 3D TV's, I'm not looking forward to that sales conversation when I decide to upgrade my TV.

    --
    # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
    Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    1. Re:3D, What's it like? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Don't worry, friend. 3D is mostly very disappointing. Shapes that were flat on the screen come out at you, but are still flat. And it is still not fully immersive (unless you've got a 360 display setup) so it is more like instead of looking at a picture book, its like one of those popup books you used to get as a kid.

      And I wouldn't worry about upgrading your TV. I believe this 3D thing will either a)never really take off at all in the consumer/home market, or b)become briefly popular and then die away (like the minidisc).

    2. Re:3D, What's it like? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      There's no conversation to be had. If you're listening to a salesman trying to sell you a TV, you're probably not ready to buy one.

      It looks sucky, by the way, and gives people without focusing issues a headache as well.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    3. Re:3D, What's it like? by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      Most salesmen I've dealt with tend to prattle on thinking they know more and that Brand X or Technology X is better. I can't wait for them to blab on about how I'd be much better off with the more expensive 3D tv.

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    4. Re:3D, What's it like? by Techman83 · · Score: 1

      The only reason I want to upgrade is to go bigger. The little 28" we've got, just doesn't cut it. Superficial "features" like 3D aren't remotely on my radar. I think the nostalgia of 3D (it's been talked about as far as I can remember), is more exciting than what the current reality.

      To be honest, on the list of things that annoy me in life, lack of 3D isn't one that rates highly. Accurate depth perception would be far more useful!

      --
      # cat /dev/mem | strings | grep -i cat
      Damn, my RAM is full of cats. MEOW!!
    5. Re:3D, What's it like? by daid303 · · Score: 1

      Seriously, what is it like?

      It's unnatural, while 2D looks flat you know it's not real and a flat image on a screen. With the pseudo 3D movies you get some fancy trick where your mind is tricked in thinking it's 3D, but only if you look at it from the right location, at the right angle, which you never do, as you need to sit at the right place, but also need to keep your head level. There are also focus problems, as you need to focus on the 2D screen on which it's projected while you mind wants to focus on a different distance. Making it stressful.

      The gimmick of seeing something float in front of you is great, but it looks holographic, not 100% real. And the effect is gone as soon as the object hits the border of the screen.

      It's like a roller-coaster, great fun on the first ride, but riding it to much will make you puke.

    6. Re:3D, What's it like? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      Haha, indeed, I do not envy you with this condition.
      I would look at your budget. a 37" or 42" does nicely (anything bigger than that, I find, is not really worth the money, but that's just me).
      If you can afford it, get an LED. Otherwise, many 1080p 37-40" LCD's can be very impressive (check the contrast ratio, the higher it is, the crisper the picture looks in terms of bright whites and dark blacks).

    7. Re:3D, What's it like? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      If you're in the market watch tigerdirect's specials, they are notorious spammers but they have lately had some amazing deals on big LCDs.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    8. Re:3D, What's it like? by bipbop · · Score: 1

      Ugh, "an LED". As marketroid-speak for "an LCD display which happens to use LED backlights", it is somewhat annoying, because there exist actual LED displays (meaning two-dimensional arrays of LEDs), even if they are not on the market at present. I prefer to avoid using the marketing term, because it is misleading and implies they are not LCD displays.

    9. Re:3D, What's it like? by HopefulIntern · · Score: 1

      I should have been more specific, but my point still stands. LED LCDs have not been on the market for very long, thus making it "new" technology in the eyes of the consumer. And there's no denying that the picture quality greatly improves.

    10. Re:3D, What's it like? by bipbop · · Score: 1

      Ah, I was not trying debate your main point. I was just bringing up a matter of terminology, which I think is important :-)

    11. Re:3D, What's it like? by chrisguy13 · · Score: 0

      I disagree with some of the responses. They probably watched remember the titans and judged it from that. A properly done movie (eg avatar) that uses two cameras to film or any PC game with IZ3D or Nvidia 3d vision is very impressive. Movies like remember the titans and Alice in Wonderland were shot standard and created the depth afterwards. This gives it a cardboard cut-out feel HopefulIntern is talking about. For some reason, this method is cheaper (less CG rendering?) and is used by studios to exploit the current popularity of 3D movies. I watched Alice in Wonderland and the whole thing made me feel sick until the credits (with growing mushrooms) which I believe was done properly as it was very pleasing and comfortable to watch

      The easiest way to show why the conversions are crap is to put an object close to your face. Close one eye and then the other. Each eye sees more of its side of the object. This is lost when a 2d to 3d conversion is done.

      Either way, you're unfortunately missing out, but the 3d tvs do also have 120hz (needed for the tech), so that can be an advantage to anyone, plus I would imagine if all tvs go 3d they will have an option to display the left image in 2d for situations with more people than glasses.

  12. that movie was so bad by circletimessquare · · Score: 2, Funny

    i'll make you a deal: i'll make believe i didn't get the movie reference in your joke if you make believe you didn't make the joke, and we'll both make believe we never saw the movie. erase our memories as it were

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:that movie was so bad by aicrules · · Score: 1

      To erase memories should we use the more intense hardware method or the newer, but slightly unreliable chemical method that may result in vague memories of each other's eyes that eventually leads to the undoing of some evil plans?

  13. perhaps by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    we should provide ourselves with a set of objects that would keep us out of danger without the objects having any obvious value

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    1. Re:perhaps by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just stick with my collection pf Philip K. Dick short stories, thank you.

  14. More details about the technology by baxissimo · · Score: 4, Informative

    Found this presentation about the tech behind this: http://www.sidchapters.org/pacificnorthwest/meetings/apr01_09_presentation.pdf

  15. Well by OrangeMonkey11 · · Score: 1

    It's great and all but what is it going to cost when all these little parts goes wrong

    1. Re:Well by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      YOUR SOUL!!!!

      or money, whichever...

  16. There... Fixed that for you... by denzacar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Microsoft: Here's the tech we have bought off and patented recently.
    We have a single working prototype in the lab and in about a year(ish), you will be able to buy a version with tacked on features you will have no use for, most of which won't even work as they should.

    Apple: Here's the tech we have copied from someone else, tacked an 'i' in front of it and spit-shined it to appear cooler.
    You can PAY for it right now at the Apple Store, and we will get it to you when we damn well please.

    Oh... and one more thing - it will cost anywhere between 2 and 5 times as the competition's model, but it will come in Apple's signature iWhite and maybe some other iColors.
    And it will cost half as much a month after it comes out. If you complain nicely, you will get a iGift-certificate for the fraction of the money difference that you can use to buy socks for your iPod.

    --
    Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    1. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by canoeberry · · Score: 1

      If it wasn't way more than spit-shined people wouldn't fall for it. There's a reason why people are, in increasing numbers, willing to pay an Apple premium: the product exhibits better taste from the hardware design to the software running on the thing, whether it's computers, phones, iPods, wi-fi base stations. You can deny that if you want but you start to look stupid after a while. Are all the people in the world paying more that stupid? Or are you just that stubborn? Or are you a closet fanboy?

      I'll tell you what's stupid: paying for the same old products from Microsoft and expecting a 20 year old situation to suddenly be different. MSFT's products are getting worse over time (except for the Vista hiccup) especially in the MSFT Office department, where Word is truly one of the worst applications I have ever seen in my life. Exhibiting poor taste and poor quality at every step of the way, it kills me that everybody continues to buy that crap and feed the monster.

      OK: I am willing to say Windows 7 might be an improvement over XP. But ... just barely ... and what was it, 10 years later?

    2. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by sootman · · Score: 1

      tl;dr. As long as we're fixing things for people, how's this?

      • Courier: killed.
      • iPad: shipping.

      What else matters?

      --
      Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
    3. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by denzacar · · Score: 1

      Of course there is more than just spit-shine i.e. pretty designed box over someone else's tech.
      There is the huge marketing army and the all powerful distortion field.
      Microsoft might be the evil empire, but Apple is simply a crazy cult. Somewhere between Branch Davidian and Scientology.
      Actually, Dave and Steve might be twins, separated at birth.
      Or clones, maybe?

      "Product exhibits better taste"? Seriously? Taste?
      Well, a long time ago someone said "De gustibus non est disputandum".
      Roughly translated it means "Tastes are like assholes. Everybody has one, and everybody finds the idea of tasting someone else's disgusting. Unless you are kinky."

      Are Apple users THAT stupid? Maybe. Personally I find them to be more like mentally deranged. Also, frighteningly uninformed. As if they are living behind an iRon curtaiN.
      I mean... waiting so long for cut&paste (and other iNventions like camera and MMS) on the iPhone can be compared to waiting for that right-click.

      What 20 year old product are you talking about?
      I guess you also consider MacOS a 26 year-old product too?
      And it doesn't even work on all computers... truly a piece of shit software, I'm sure you would agree.
      I'm using YOUR logic after all.

      And hey... 10 years to get to Win7 is still better than 26. Or however long it will take Apple to move on from MacOS.
      When exactly will Apple release an actual new piece of software? Like... they are just sitting there holding their one-button mice since 1984, polishing the same old crud.

      --
      Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
    4. Re:There... Fixed that for you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      lame troll is lame

  17. hmm by Jeek+Elemental · · Score: 1

    microsoft+eye lasers? cant see what could possibly go wrong, sign me up!

    1. Re:hmm by sv_libertarian · · Score: 1

      Just think of all the fabulous news ecurity exploits!

  18. Nintendo? by Codex_of_Wisdom · · Score: 1

    Didn't Nintendo already announce this for their next handheld?

  19. The question is... by zm · · Score: 4, Funny

    ... will it blend?

    --
    Sig ?
    1. Re:The question is... by RivenAleem · · Score: 1

      I'm just waiting for: "The human hand, it's got an opposable thumbs, useful for in-numeral complex tasks. But will it blend?"

  20. Value of SOLO viewing without glasses? by dpbsmith · · Score: 1

    The system relies on tracking a viewer's eyes, so it can only be viewed by more than one person at a time.

    If you're viewing by yourself in private at home, why would you care about how you look wearing glasses?

    The applications for a no-glasses solo viewing display would seem to be limited. I don't see any use for personal viewing at home.

    Advertising in a public area? It has to have so little traffic that no more than one person at a time is likely to be in range, yet enough traffic to justify the cost of installing the system.

    Hotel? If there are two beds in a room, they'd better plan on double occupancy. Two TVs?

    Arcade games? Seatback entertainment on planes and busses? ZunePads? Can anyone think of anything else?

    1. Re:Value of SOLO viewing without glasses? by danlock4 · · Score: 1

      I like the idea of a 3D display that can be viewed by one-eyed people, eh?

      --
      To .sig or not to .sig, that is the question.
    2. Re:Value of SOLO viewing without glasses? by drkim · · Score: 1

      Actually this system can serve:

      Two people, two different streams of 3-D content...

      Four people, four different streams of 2-D content...

      ...and for an infinite number of people who can't read articles, an unlimited amount of mis-information on which to base incorrect opinions.

  21. In Soviet Redmond . . . by bigspring · · Score: 0

    . . . TV watches you!

  22. Woody Allen by drkim · · Score: 1

    "In my house I'm the boss, my wife is just the decision maker."

    Woody Allen

  23. No M$ TV for me thanks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What about the scariness of a Microsoft branded TV watching you?

  24. It's been a long time by jprupp · · Score: 1

    Since I don't respect Microsoft's "creativity". I have to admit I have to give them good credit for this one. I won't become Paul Thurrot though. There's still a long way to go for Microsoft if they wish to undo the evils they have done to the industry.