Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Create Electronic Glasses That Can Automatically Focus On Whatever You're Looking At (engadget.com)
mmell writes: University of Utah scientists have created a prototype electronic lens which uses several technologies to customize the lens optics focusing on whatever the wearer is looking at. [Just like] the "oil lenses" in Frank Herbert's Dune series of novels, the electronic lens (a transparent LCD) can have its index of refractivity modified by application of a small electric current. While I can conceive many uses for this technology (in spacecraft instruments, webcams/Handycams, handheld binoculars and telescopes for example), these were developed as a replacement for the progressive lenses -- a.k.a. bifocals -- which are worn by many with less than perfect eyesight. Many eyeglass wearers don't tolerate bifocals well and I wonder if the adaptive optics in this prototype could relieve them of the need to carry multiple pairs of glasses? Whether they prove cost effective for the role of eyeglasses or not (and I can see no reason why they shouldn't), the applications for this technology seem quite diverse and potentially even revolutionary. I wonder how long it will be before these are more than just a prototype?
can't wait, it would be fantastic to have a full field of view at any distance rather than the limited bands I get with my current progressive lenses.
Glasses can try to adjust the focus based on the perceived distance, but cannot know you are not looking at the wall, but at the fly hoovering between you and the wall. So without looking at the eye trying to focus this is pretty useless.
Can they become completely opaque when the wearer looks at something that might be deemed perilous to you?
The goggles do nothing!
My eyes! The goggles do nothing!
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I was discussing this type of technology with my eye doctor about a month ago. She said that a lot of the technology for adaptive glasses and LCD glasses (but not the eye tracking part) are already tied up by patent holders who will not license them. Things like using the LCD to make sunglasses and other things at a similar tech level. She said there there was so much money in traditional glasses that they were sitting on "high tech" glasses so they wouldn't eat into their own profit margins. Not sure how much there is to this, but I've no reason to disbelieve her. If so, I wonder if that could put a stop to or slow glasses like these.
I can see these artisinally crafted frames flying off the shelf at bodegas in gentrified urban areas everywhere. Maybe they can get Shinola to brand them.
Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.
One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
They make "progressive" glasses that focus on whatever you're looking at, but they don't make "conservative" glasses that focus on whatever you wish you were looking at.
Things about living in the future - this is the one technology I has been waiting for years, for before I need reading glasses! Now please go and take that to market! And if you want to include some mosquito-killer-lasers in the process I would not mind.
-><- no
They'll be ready for production in about 5 years. Cool tech always is about 5 years away from production. New batteries with double the capacity, new processor with half the power consumption, new hard drive tech that exponentially increases capacity..... all 5 years out.
It is 10 years if it is a basic science breakthrough, like room temperature superconductors or desktop fusion reactors.
Whatever happened to the hologram bi-focals from decades ago? I saw they were 'invented' and that was it, never seen again.
That was a hologram of TWO lenses, one near sighted, one far sighted, and your eye would focus on the image that was sharpest to what it was trying to focus on. So if you tried to look at a distant object, the eye would focus on the in focus image from the far sighted lens.
I always wondered if they worked, or what the problem was. I always hoped they simply make an LCD shade that selected between the two distances, so I could tap a button and switch to reading glasses.
I kinda like the chunky look of the glasses, but the one thing that comes to mind if wearing them while driving is the last of peripheral vision they allow.
The lens is quite small, effectively give you tunnel vision (albeit it with perfect clarity), but outside of that smallish window, your completely blinded.
I know it's a prototype, and they do mention that work needs to be done to make them look better, but I hope they can also vastly reduce the thickness of the frames and arms, reduce the weight, and increase the size of the lens so that they are actually useful.
I'm sure I'll soon be in a position again to be requiring glasses, so something like this will likely be really useful to me in the not-too-distant future - hopefully long enough for them to work out these little details.
It's a liquid filled lens, which can change shape. That's cool and all, but LCD is a totally different kettle of fish.
This sounds like just the ticket for me.
If you're looking for any more test subjects, get in touch via the (unarmoured) email above ASAP and tell me what I need to do to get in on this. Please!
Sincerely,
Zontar the Very Willing Guinea Pig.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Just let me tell the glasses which mode to be in and I'll be happy. Full auto control WILL get it wrong more times than I'm prepared to put up with, and WILL needlessly increase the price.
So now the innocent perving down heavy cleavage is going to become my homepage and best location destination on Facebook.
Thanks AI !!!
My extensive experience as a wearer of glasses is that it is varifocals that are the hardest to live with (I am short sighted, with some astigmatism). Particularly if one is is engaged in things that require some peripheral vision (e.g. ball sport, driving, flying etc). The problem with varifocals is that they only focus straight ahead and anything to the side of that central (up/down) band is not just out of focus, but (especially looking down and sideways) distorted. This means that to look at things to the side of centre (even a little bit) requires one to turn one's whole head to move in the direction that one wants to look. Bifocals are much easier, they don't give the continuous up/down focus of varifocals, but they don't distort when looking outside of the central focused "belt", so a quick flick to the right or left just happens naturally. I am lucky, I don't need a strong prescription and only distance and reading. Middle focus (which I am using for typing this) needs no glasses at all. YMMV.
If such glasses are to become successful then they will need binocular eye tracking (and probably some kind of brain interface as well [for focusing cues]). Then the glasses' centres will also have to track each respective eyeball's focal point as well. Then (and only then) will the "automatic focusing" become useful.
You make a lens consisting of tiny vertical strips, even strips are the distance sighted lens, odd strips are the close sighted lens. (Think of a fresnel lens but the strips running vertical only).
A shutter in front of the lens blocks out even or odd strips depending on its position. This shutter slides in the frame horizontally by the distance of the strips. So if the strips are half a millimeter wide, then the shutter can shift half a millimeter horizontally. A slider on the side is used to shift the shutter left or right.
Are you reading? Slide it up for your reading glasses, slide it down for your distance glasses.
****************
Idea 2:
I'm not sure why hologram lenses that focus at two separate distances failed, I assume it was due to the hologram part? Holograms tend to need one frequency of light, and that is not good for normal glasses. So I suspect that was the problem.
But optics should be able to do the same, create a compound lens that focuses at two separate focal plane so your eyes can pick the plane depending on where you are looking. I assume your brain can control your eyes to pull one or other into focus, since this was the principle of the holographic bi-focals.
..or, at least, have tried these...
http://en.howtopedia.org/wiki/How_to_Get_Adjustable_Glasses%3F
not sexy auto adaptive, thought...
Variable-focus lenses have been tried before, but not autofocus. A friend had a manually controlled pair from Superfocus and loved them. But Superfocus is no longer selling them. http://www.allaboutvision.com/... The mechanisms used may differ, but the function is similar. What's new here is the autofocus feature - look at a scene, and a sensor will measure the distance and use that information to focus the lens as your visual system would do if your organic lens still had its depth adaptation capability. That's cool and potentially useful. They claim 5.8 diopter focusing range, good enough to go from distance to reading. But their prototype lens is 8.4 mm (1/3 inch) thick and weighs 14.4 gm. So there's a way to go yet.
About the same time something like this becomes a product, they'll probably have surgical procedures that make them unnecessary.
I'd like to see this adapted to take the place of magnifying head gear so I can scrutinize tiny components on PCBs.
University of Utah students who were volunteering to test the new glasses were reported as saying:
"Wow...I can read so much more clearly no...wait, what? Holy shit...the Book of Mormon says WHAT?"
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
"the Muslims have what's coming to them"
Actually, it's the very 'coming' that they have problems with now.
The shocking thing about progressive lenses when you first get them is that in the mid range they have almost no lateral field of view. Look at a wide computer monitor and only the central 6 inches are in focus. You have to learn to scan your head not your eyes to see the whole screen. This is one reason why they make computer-specific glasses by the way.
As someone who knows a little bit about optics I found this surprising. You would sort have expected that a progressive lens could be made sort of like a fresnel lens with connected regions of varialbe focal length. Doing that ought to give you a wide field of view at each vertical layer. But evidently this is not how they are made.
What I'm describing here isn't just my own experience it's well documented and you can find many illustrations of progressive lenses that show the usable part of the eye glasses is hourglass shaped. Very narrow in the middle so turning your eyes looks through the bad regions on the side when in the middle depth focal range. Companies compete to brag how their lenses have a wider middle region.
I have yet to find a good explanation of why this has to be the case. My guess here is that the cosmetic goal of elminating "lines" like you see in tri-focals, comes at the cost of blending the divergent edges in the outer edge of the lens, creating a rubbish region. But I'm not sure if that's the sole explanation. Why can't a gontinuously graded lens strength also form a smooth blend? It should. So I think maybe there is another explanation. Anyone know?
It's not that you can't use these. Having all focal distances accessible at the same time is great. But you have to learn to point your nose at whatever you want to look at. FOr some prescriptions this is worse than others. and for some people they get headaches.
Thus with that introduction, I sense that these autofocus lenses are remarkably interesting because they are another way to have all ranges available. One can imagine the time lag in adjustment is going to cause awful results at first. SO I can't imagine these things succeeding in the market. But it would be nice if i'm wrong.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I thought "artisinally crafted frames" were shit. I guess I don't know shit from shinola.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Well, except for fusion. That's consistently 20 years out. Oh, and flying cars. Those we're just not going to get, because, reasons.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Lets hope they don't get bought out by Luxottica. Because frames/lenses that auto adjust to your changing prescription does not sound good for the existing business model...
-- Senior Software Engineer, Attorney appearance services, locallawyerapp.com.
It's because 99.9% of progressive lenses have a semi-custom lens ground into one side, but a standardized lens ground into the other, with no regard for getting the optics right anywhere besides the center vertical axis.
It IS possible to make better glasses using raytracing (to design) and custom grinding (to implement) on both sides to "get it right" along the horizontal axis, too... but those lenses are expensive, and you'll only see a dramatic improvement if
1) the optician gets all the measurements precisely right (they rarely do, because full custom lenses are expensive, few stores sell more than one or two pairs a year, and they require more measurements than "normal" lenses that most techs don't fully understand);
2) The glasses are meticulously adjusted for proper alignment... and kept in proper alignment with frequent adjustments.
Realistically, you're looking at glasses that cost about $600-1,000/pair PLUS the frame cost.
The tech was developed for custom progressive lenses, but it can also be used to make better single-vision lenses for people with astigmatism. Normal glasses have a standardized sphere + base curve manufactured into one side, and a non-optimized cylindrical lens ground onto the other side (usually, without regard for lens angle or lens distance FROM pupil). I believe full-custom single-vision lenses run about $500-800 more than "regular" (non-optimized) ones.
The magic word to say & demand when asking about such lenses is "freeform" (often, used in conjunction with "custom" and/or "high-definition"). Just be aware that the optician's skill & experience fitting freeform lenses is ENORMOUSLY important. Even freeform custom lenses can suck if the optician is careless with his/her measurements. And demand the specific word "freeform" -- unlike other marketing terms, "freeform" has a very specific meaning in the industry. Not all lenses advertised as "hi-def" or "custom" are literally "freeform". At least one brand that's "semi-custom" exists that grinds a customized & optimized cyl onto one side of a lens manufactured with a standard sph+base curve on the other. For SV astigmatism, semi-custom might be good enough... but for progressive, you really want full-blown two-surface freeform custom lenses.
For the younger people reading this, these types of glasses are mostly useful for older people, those that have presbyopia. I.E. people that need reading glasses / bifocals / progressives.
I had 2 pairs of Superfocus glasses and loved them. Until they broke. And the company went out of business. I'm in traditional progressives now and supplement that with single-vision "computer glasses" for work. Constantly swapping glasses is a pain.
I've been watching the Adlens CustomFocuss product, but I see now that the website is gone. The company had limited rollout of the product and weren't in my state yet, so I was waiting. Looks like it may not be available anymore.
This was done some years ago with liquid. And they were as clunky as these, but supposedly worked well. The plan was to sell them in poor nations b/c they could be manufactured for cheap. Never heard what happened.
The next time was much more interesting. Using quantum effects a lens was designed using microscopic holes instead of a traditional refractive optics. This was not clunky and was actually kind of cool b/c it complete hid one's eyes. I never quite understood how they were adjustable though. And again have heard nothing about them since.
Will probably hear nothing about these in the future either.
:T:R:A:N:S:
wow. that's great information. answers my puzzle. thanks. I wonder why it's hard to customize both sides if you can do one side.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
I find that VR headsets don't quite have a feeling of "reality" to them, and I'm not sure exactly how much low FOV, low resolution, screen door, and accomodation/vergence issues contribute to this. After all, you're always focusing at a fixed distance no matter how distant the object you're looking at is "supposed" to appear, and maybe this difference is perceptible as "not real".
But would instantly refocusable lenses help here? A sensor could detect how the user's eyes were focused and then use the refocusable lens to implement a corresponding change to the focal plane of the LCD panel. If that makes any sense. Like, if a sensor could tell that my eyes are focused at an object X meters away (by examining where both my eyes are pointing), then the headset lenses could change shape so that they make the screens appear to be projected at that same distance.
instead of burning your eye with a laser you adjust the prescription with a firmware update.
Mass-production vs one-off customization. Even with robots and CAM to handle the grinding, it still takes more time and effort to grind two lens surfaces instead of just one... and more effort to calculate custom lenses instead of blindly grinding another standardized design on the other side.
That said, I think that competition from cheap online labs will force traditional retailers to reduce the cost of freeform lenses and market them more aggressively. If you can take your prescription and buy a mediocre pair of glasses for $15 online, why would you pay $50-100 for an equally-mediocre pair? On the other hand, if a mediocre pair is $15, but a freeform pair is $200, and the freeform pair is sufficiently better to feel like a HUGE improvement, people will pay the higher cost for the quality pair (even IF they buy a cheap mediocre pair online to keep as a spare pair). By (US) law, your "prescription" (sph, cyl, axis, prism) have to be provided on demand so you can use it elsewhere, but the measurements needed to make custom lenses for a pair of frames are still considered proprietary (and are pretty damn hard to measure without the proper equipment), so they aren't required to share them with you. Ten years from now, mediocre online glasses will be regarded the way drugstore reading glasses are now... something that's better than nothing if you're poor or need a spare, but blatantly inferior to "real" glasses.
As far as SV lenses for astigmatism go, the main advantage of two-sided freeform fully-custom over single-sided freeform semi-custom is aesthetics... with control over BOTH surfaces, you can neutralize things like magnification/minification (so your eyes don't look larger or smaller to observers seeing them through the lens), and adjust the base curve near the periphery to allow thinner lenses. If you only have full freedom over one surface, you can optimize for optics at the expense of thicker lenses, or thinner lenses at the cost of optic fidelity, and your ability to neutralize out magnification/minification will be severely constrained.
From what I've been read, single-surface semi-custom freeform is a HUGE step forward from single-surface lenses ground with traditional standard curves, but the difference between single- and double-surface freeform (for SV astigmatism) is more like the difference between 480p24 from a DVD and 720p24 from Blu-Ray... it's there, but it's not nearly as dramatic as the difference between nominal-480i60 from VHS and 480p24 from DVD.
I believe lenses marketed as "aspheric" are basically designed the way freeform lenses are (with raytracing), but are mass-produced in only a few permutations of sph+cyl... and usually, optimized for thinness over optics. Personally, I wouldn't bother with them... they cost almost as much as single-surface freeform lenses, and don't provide nearly as much optical improvement.
Bifocals are not the same as progressives. Bifocals have lenses with two parts with different focal lengths. Progressives have a gradient of increasing lens power from top to bottom.
thanks again. To inquire further what added measurements are needed. I'm always a bit galled when I get my perscription and they leave off the pupilary distances-- they refer me to the optics shop for that. Yet my insurance favors their preferred online vendors who of course ask for my pupilary distance. Fortunately that number isn't too hard to come up with but it's frustrating it's not part of the prescription. Hence my wonder about what other measurements are needed. I'd guess maybe eyeglass to eyeball matters too, and the vertical centering as well. And yet it also seems like those might not matter much too since during the day your glasses may be worn slightly differently (pushed in, natural position, or pulled down a bit) and it doesn't seem to matter acutely. Or rather the effect is not so distorting as the hourglass of the progressive. My current glasses are said to be HD and "digital" and also said to be custom ground. But from what you are telling me those are marketing terms that are just saying they are a step up from trifocals glued together. Not double sided custom or aspheric. (which also makes one wonder, if you can grind a glass arbitrarily, why would one bother with spherical optics-- everything should just be aspheric because, why not?)
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
That problem isn't limited to progressive lenses, though it might be worse in those designs. When your eye changes direction, the pupil moves in an arc, which means that its lens gets closer to or farther from the lens in your glasses, which has an entirely different curvature. I'm not certain, but I suspect that it would be physically impossible to build glasses that are in focus regardless of the position of your eye without changing the amount of correction on the fly. Anything that would cause objects to be in focus while looking to the side would cause those same objects to be out of focus when looking straight ahead and vice versa, so the resulting focal accuracy is inherently a compromise.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
I found this video.
https://youtu.be/KFlBGd01jxk
what I infer from this is that even free form lenses are surfacing the back surface only. It also seems to show that the intermediate focal distance are still a keyhole even with the best possible lens they can make.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
Yes, it is quite clear that Christians, of the type who responded to Bush's call for "Crusade (sic)" in order to murder over 1 million innocent Iraqis, are the most dangerous.
He did not do it in name of Christianity, though. You know as well as I do, that 'crusade' has other allegorical meanings, and not points to an actual crusade like happened 600 years ago. And while many innocents were killed, the *target* was not innocent civilians, in contrasts to terrorists. Also, there is no doubt that, if certain parts of the world with a certain religious conviction had the military might and power of the US, the death- toll would be far higher than 1 million.
The point was not that wars can not be fought by others, but what religion is most dangerous in the sense of: most terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion. It's quite simple: how many terrorist attacks are done in the name of which religion this last decade. Is it Christianity? Buddhism? etc. Evaluate this objectively, and you get your answer. I don't see why one has to become all emotional if not defensive about it.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The targets were innocent civilians GIVEN that he knew there was no WMD and no threat.
Yes, clearly the WMD was an excuse to get rid of Saddam (which they failed to do the first time), to get influence in the Middle-East, and for the oil.
All that, however, is irrelevant to consider which religion is the most dangerous, as in: determining in what regions' name attacks are being carried out the most, this past decade. For instance: were there the most terrorist attacks from Christians (done in the name of Christianity), from Muslims (in the Name of Islam), or from Buddhist (in the name of Buddha)?
Given that context, I stand by my words that it's pretty clear who scores the highest this last decade. This does not mean that all practitioners of that religion are terrorists, only that that particular religion gives rise to the most amount of terrorists these days.
I don't think anyone can reasonably deny this.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
War kills far more people than terrorist attacks.
Terrorism hardly kills anyone. Far less then auto accidents.
So now the question you are asking is "is it acceptable to begin a Crusade to kill a million plus as long as you don't actually SAY you are doing it for Christ"?
Do I have your excuse laughably correct?
In answer to the distillation of your excuses above, the answer is emphatically no
And the numbers declare Christianity to be far more deadly than Islam
True. But the question was not: what kills most people: traffic accidents or religion. It was: what religion is the most dangerous. This, in the context of how many attacks are done in the name of which religion the most.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
No, the question was: in which name of which religion is done the most attacks, this last decade? I explicitly said so what the question was in my former post, so either you're being wilfully obtuse, or you can't read comprehensively.
Obviously, if it isn't done in the name of a religion, the question which religion is the most dangerous has no bearings on it.
Islam?
So...why didn't you presume Buddhism was? Or Jainism?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
I did tell people about Africanizing glasses... before any such were hinted at in markets, meaning I knew how to make them real, not just conceiving an idea. Went slightly thrillerish because of it, unwantedly. But nothing. I am not surprised by these product, only hope it does sell in the market and does not become obsolete in the next two months, (not because of new technology but just because, like ALL the XXI century products I cannot find in amazon or elsewhere again...).
No, the question is which has committed more killing in the last Decade
Christianity WINS by a knockout.
9/11 = 2918 dead
the 2003 invasion by those responding to Bush's demand for a CRUSADE (Sic) > 1,000,000
Not at all. You can scroll back, if you want, it's plain to see for all. I'll quote my original post to which you responded again:
"Well, it's true that all religions are retarded delusions that can be dangerous to other people and society as a whole, but that said, even among religions you have varying levels of being retarded, delusional and dangerous.
One may debate the first two, but it's been clear this past decade which one is the most dangerous in current times."
Since you invoked wars done for geopolitical interests and oil control, which had nothing to do with a religious basis, I've provided further context: namely that for determing how dangerous a religion is, it has to have the religious component (duh), aka: which religion is the most dangerous in the sense of which attacks have been done in the name of which religion, and that for the last decade? You can continue to ignore the obvious, but it's clear the war in Iraq wasn't a religious war. You keep 'sic'-ing the word crusade, but I've already given you an anwser on that, namely that that word has other allegorical meanings as well. If you have doubts, you can look up the definitions yourself. Or better still, I'll provide them:
1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"
As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.
The USA, while - granted - inventing excuses like WMD's, did not do it out of hatred for Muslims and wanting to impose Christianity on Iraq, nor was it a Holy War against Islam (if it were, they would have simply nuked all Muslim countries), nor was it done in name of Christianity. You know this as well as I do, so your insistence that religion was the driving force behind the war in this regard is nonsensical and puerile.
You also didn't answer the other question: why did you presume Islam? Why not, for instance, Budhism? Or Jainism?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
The question is Which religion is the greatest threat. lots of games, but BUSH said CRUSADE (sic) and 260,000 Christians joined to kill innocent Muslims
Your game is over.
Yes, and for that question you obviously need to address the attacks made in name of a religion, otherwise you can't say which religion is the greatest threat. Are you daft or simply being willfully obtuse? It was clear from the start you misinterpreted my question, since you started with a war that had no religious connotation at all, and that's why I clarified my question from the start. It's my question, so *I* know best what is meant by it, me thinks. ;-)
Besides, you can't have it both ways. If no religious connotation is necessary, than I would like to point out that during the Iraq-Iran war alone, 1,66 million Muslims were killed - by Muslims. that would trump your 1 million on the Iraq war by far.
But regardless, I can see you're trolling and will never concede the point unless I ask it directly, so you have no wriggle room anymore.
I'll ask you this question, thus: In the name of what religion is being done the most terrorist attacks this last decade?
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
One more time
What
Is
A
CRUSADE?
Except war for religion.
You lose
Don't be so puerile. This is about applying logic and rational reasoning, nothing more, nothing less.
And.. don't you even read? I've already answered it twice.
Crusade:
1. lead or take part in an energetic and organized campaign concerning a social, political, or religious issue.
"he crusaded against gambling in the 1950s"
synonyms: campaign, fight, do battle, battle, take up arms, work, strive, struggle, agitate, lobby, champion, promote
"she likes crusading for the cause of the underdog"
As we can see with the definitions and the example, the word 'crusade' is not only referring to a medieval military expedition, one of a series made by Europeans to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries. It's ANY energetic and organised campaign, even if it's social or political. Thus the word crusade can be used without having religious connotations.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
One more time.
The issue is the HYPOCRISY of attacking muslims for the violence of some when it is CHRISTIANS who have done the most violence
Not tough, just requires a working brain without bigotry
Which, as I pointed out several times by now, was not the question: you only interpreted it as such. To know what *religion* is most dangerous, it has to be done in name of that religion *OBVIOUSLY*. If it's for other reasons, then it follows it was not from religion, and therefor, it has no bearings on what religion is most dangerous.
You keep failing to understand that, while you only need a working brain to grasp it, with or without bigotry, but with rationality.
The stance you make makes no sense, and isn't pertaining to the question. First of all, the Iraq war started in 2003, and that's when the most deaths caused by the US fell - 2003 is outside the 'last decade' as I asked. So your counter wasn't even to the point there neither, but I let it slip because you didn't make sense anyway. But let's say we take 'in modern times' to mean the last 50 years, then. It still doesn't make sense, then. This is because, obviously, if you take it that a 'dangerous religion' means the perpetrators doing it are of that particular belief (and not: are doing it IN NAME OF that belief), then, as I've explained earlier, one has also to look at ALL DEATHS that ALL MUSLIMS have ever done too, *even* if it wasn't in name of their religion. And in that case, you'll note that during the Iran-Iraq war alone, they made 1,66 million deaths: far more than the Iraq war. And that's only two Muslim countries. If you take deaths caused by Muslims as a whole since 1950, you'll end up with far more: they approximately killed 14 million others (https://www.facebook.com/notes/knowledge-is-power/290-million-victims-of-islamic-terror/416083148469556/). Christians don't even come close, for the past half century.
But of course, those were also not religious wars. Point is, you're not making it any easier for yourself by interpreting 'the most dangerous religion' in the context of 'deaths made by believers of that religion, for whatever (even non-religious) reasons'. Because in that case, you also have to count all the deaths of all Muslims, whether it was religiously inspired or not. And in that case, it's even more doubtful Muslims come out as the best.
Btw, I didn't attack anyone. If I ask: "In what name of which religion is done the most attacks this last decade?" I'm only asking for a rational response based on facts, not bigotry. My secondary question thus remains: why did you think it was Muslims, and not, say, Buddhists, or Jainists? You're reluctance to answer that, is purely derived from your own knowledge about the matter, so even *you* are well aware what the answer is. Otherwise, you'd searched it up, to know if it weren't Buddhism or Jainism. But no, we actually both know the answer to that question. You make an emo-response to it, shouting 'bigotry' like any good political correct SJW would do, but it does not alter the facts.
In contrast to your irrational emo-response, this does not mean or imply that I think that *every* Muslim is a terrorist. Far from it. But it does mean, that currently, Islam is the most dangerous religion in the context of terrorist attacks being done in name of a religion.
You can turn it as you want, but that is undeniable. That you feel offended by that fact, is not my problem. Most terorist attacks ARE done in the name of Islam, and that since 2004; look at the hard data from datagraver, if you don't believe it. Period.
--- "To pee or not to pee, that is the question." ---
One more time
WHICH RELIGION KILLS THE MOST PEOPLE is the only legitimate question.