I really like 3D photos, they allow me to see the separation of depth and this makes the photos more memorable. I use mirror stereoscopes which are crystal clear with no ghosting and 3D slide viewers which also have no ghosting and give an impressive field of view.
We purchased a plasma 3D TV from Samsung, and the experience was not good. The TV suffers from very bad ghosting. After exploring this it would appear that the plasma just goes not decay fast enough to switch between the left and right images fast enough. We then looked at many other models in stores and even $5000 models had bad ghosting. They also had poor brightness and thus poor color - the loss of brightness due to the glasses switching from left to right and the filters they required. I don't think TV manufacturers should be selling such TVs as '3D' and feel cheated - the technical problems are just too great.
Then there are the content issues. 3D content needs to have an appropriate separation for the field of view. With a mirror or slide viewer the field of view is known and the content can be produced to match and look realistic. For a TV the field of view changes with the viewing distance. Content made for iMax is not going to suit viewing on a home TV from a good distance where the field of view is much smaller. Perhaps 3D content needs to be produced with more than just two camera views to allow the viewer some selection.
There are a lot of good reasons that 3D TVs are not going to be well received, but please don't let this put you off 3D content as it has been done much better in the past and is improving. I note that Sony are producing a 3D TV Helmet, and this could solve many of the issues, and I look forward to giving this a try.
anyone to propose a solution that does not involve splitting Google or limiting their market share.
Google have a history of penalising people based on their suspicions alone by denying service. Given their dominant position this is not acceptable and I challenge anyone to see otherwise.
If Google were split into 20 separate companies all competing then this behaviour would have only limited effect and could be tolerated.
Would you please consider how you would feel if Google decided on their whim that you should be banned from access to their services. Would you still be a Google fan if it was a friend or family member? Would you be scared by Google growing further?
Google are just too big.
within a community, so Australian's would be right to be very disappointed to see our friends in the US campaigning against our right to regulate. The bottom line is that the greatest threat to freedom on the Internet at present is the dominance of selfish US corporations. So unless the US government is prepared to tackle the dominance of these large companies in a significant manner such as splitting them to have no more than a 5% market share then please do not lecture Australia on freedom.
- I think Google management are immature, show a gross lack of understanding and tolerance, and I can assure all you Google groupies that you will not be getting much of a following. This case is not even related to Google so how can they be 'following Google'?
Agreed, this is the real problem, Google are just too dominant, and the solution is more competition. Sorry Google the only way for you is down in a free fair world and it is rather ironic that the Chinese government is helping us to a free fair world and the US government is backing Google.
disgace. Google have still not provided any evidence, have not withdraw the allegation or apologized to the Chinese government, yet they charge on causing damage. There should really be a law against what Google are doing, certainly not socially acceptable.
Interesting how closely the US Government backs Google in this dispute. They recently stated that this shows it is too difficult to do business in China. Clearly just propaganda as this dispute has nothing to do with difficulty doing business, Google are immaturely pushing a political agenda or a PR stunt and were already able to comply with the Chinese laws. I don't consider Google a force for good in the free world, quite the opposite.
Well said. If Google are allowed to succeed then please understand that you will all live in fear. You may awaken one morning to have your Google services cut off and if Google are as successful as they aspire to be then you will have few alternatives. If you appeal to Google they will investigate in secret by their own standards and not those of society, they will likely not even contact you or give you a chance to defend yourself, and you will have little chance to challenge Google court. If you complain to your Government they will not be able to do anything - they may remind you that Google whipped China in 2010 and there is little they can do!
Quoting from their terms of use for Google Docs "Google reserves the right in its sole discretion to decide whether your conduct is inappropriate and whether it complies with these Terms of Service..." "Google may terminate your access for such inappropriate conduct in violation of these Terms of Service at any time ".
Google may for any reason terminate your use of this software causing you damage and loss. Be warned that Google have a bad reputation for such behaviour. They are currently threatening China so do you think they give a shit for us little people!
Sorry Google I do not accept your right to decide who can use a document editing system on their own netbook - get your soft wares out of their system. Do not allow Google into your computer, you do not want to be in bed with this commercial entity.
A company built on vapour sucking in huge amounts of money selling a lie that has grown to such heights it tries to dictate international politics. Awesome!
Penalizing, damaging, or even insulting others based on your suspicions along is not socially acceptable behaviour. Google are making threads in this case, which I suspect they believe will cause damage. When you are the size of Google you can be expected to meet higher standards.
Google have become the Internet's bully. At least they are giving China a warning. Most people would not even get a warning before Google cuts access! Their actions also show just how incompetent they are at working this Asian countries - calling China out in public is a huge loss of face and very very insulting. Google have not even thought this through well, because they have far less strength in China. I hope China shut the door on Google, and that other nations follow, and we end up with much more diversity in the Internet market.
If a company dominates a market then it is important that it deals with people fairly, by socially acceptable standards. If Google decided not to do business with a racial group, or a religious group, or an anti-Google group, or just an arbitrary group that some algorithm flags, then would you still consider this fair? Clearly society has a say in Google's actions.
Google rule their market ruthlessly. They will suspend people from their services penalising them and causing them damage based on their suspicions alone, based on a secret investigation, without warning, and without giving people a chance to defend themselves. Not to mention how ruthlessly Google filter their own search results. Google do not deserve to dominate any market and they are already too large, and they certainly are in no position to lecture the Chinese government on Internet ethics.
Check the Adwords forum to see numerous complaints:
http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdWords/
People have also reported being suspended from Google Checkout.
Your assumption that they 'usually have good reasons' is wrong. They will suspend people based on their suspicions alone, and they will investigate in secret and you are highly unlikely to be contacted to defend yourself. The bottom line is that they reserve the right to suspend for any reason, which is not fair given their dominance, and not an acceptable standard in the free world.
Google reserves their right to suspend services for any reason in most of their terms and they do exercise this right by suspending people for life from the use of their services. Becoming dependant on Google's services, or being dependant on a market they dominate, leads to a large penalty and damage when services are suspended. Google will suspend services based on their suspicion alone, and clearly use data collected to make decisions. Their investigations are held in secret, based on secret information, giving the victim no chance to defend it, and this is not fair treatment. It has become so bad that employers are asking job applicants if they have ever been suspended from Google services to avoid the risk that Google will suspend the employers services. Clearly something needs to be done, but what can they really do?
You are wrong around the registration requirements for.com.au domain names. Simply selling advertising relating to the domain name is enough to show a 'close a substantial connection' and qualify and the stephenconroy.com.au. name could easily meet these requirements. Things have changed since the auDA took over, and the auDA has allowed the.com.au domain name space to become full of parked monetised websites.
Selling anything related to 'Stephen Conroy' or even selling advertising for anything related to 'Stephen Conroy' would be enough to meet the commercial requirements. Further a new website would not be expected to be up a running immediately and auDA should have given them a chance to correct the issue.
You are wrong about the.com.au domain name needs to have a registered business/trading name related to the domain. The auDA allows monetised website with ads related to the name and this does not need to be your business name. Please so many people are stating misinformation on this issue could someone flag them all as misinformation.
The auDA support squatting but with the limitation that the name can not be sold for 6 months - you just have to put some advertising related to the name on the website to qualify as a monetised website under the auDA policy.
There is no requirement that a.com.au domain name is related to the company name, it just has to be related to their business activity and placing some ads on the website related to the name is enough!
You are wrong about the commercial requirements. These are very minimal. Just placing some ads on their website selling Steve dolls or Steve posters etc would be enough to meet the auDA monetised website requirements.
Slashdot Mirror
I really like 3D photos, they allow me to see the separation of depth and this makes the photos more memorable. I use mirror stereoscopes which are crystal clear with no ghosting and 3D slide viewers which also have no ghosting and give an impressive field of view. We purchased a plasma 3D TV from Samsung, and the experience was not good. The TV suffers from very bad ghosting. After exploring this it would appear that the plasma just goes not decay fast enough to switch between the left and right images fast enough. We then looked at many other models in stores and even $5000 models had bad ghosting. They also had poor brightness and thus poor color - the loss of brightness due to the glasses switching from left to right and the filters they required. I don't think TV manufacturers should be selling such TVs as '3D' and feel cheated - the technical problems are just too great. Then there are the content issues. 3D content needs to have an appropriate separation for the field of view. With a mirror or slide viewer the field of view is known and the content can be produced to match and look realistic. For a TV the field of view changes with the viewing distance. Content made for iMax is not going to suit viewing on a home TV from a good distance where the field of view is much smaller. Perhaps 3D content needs to be produced with more than just two camera views to allow the viewer some selection. There are a lot of good reasons that 3D TVs are not going to be well received, but please don't let this put you off 3D content as it has been done much better in the past and is improving. I note that Sony are producing a 3D TV Helmet, and this could solve many of the issues, and I look forward to giving this a try.
anyone to propose a solution that does not involve splitting Google or limiting their market share. Google have a history of penalising people based on their suspicions alone by denying service. Given their dominant position this is not acceptable and I challenge anyone to see otherwise. If Google were split into 20 separate companies all competing then this behaviour would have only limited effect and could be tolerated. Would you please consider how you would feel if Google decided on their whim that you should be banned from access to their services. Would you still be a Google fan if it was a friend or family member? Would you be scared by Google growing further? Google are just too big.
within a community, so Australian's would be right to be very disappointed to see our friends in the US campaigning against our right to regulate. The bottom line is that the greatest threat to freedom on the Internet at present is the dominance of selfish US corporations. So unless the US government is prepared to tackle the dominance of these large companies in a significant manner such as splitting them to have no more than a 5% market share then please do not lecture Australia on freedom.
- I think Google management are immature, show a gross lack of understanding and tolerance, and I can assure all you Google groupies that you will not be getting much of a following. This case is not even related to Google so how can they be 'following Google'?
Agreed, this is the real problem, Google are just too dominant, and the solution is more competition. Sorry Google the only way for you is down in a free fair world and it is rather ironic that the Chinese government is helping us to a free fair world and the US government is backing Google.
disgace. Google have still not provided any evidence, have not withdraw the allegation or apologized to the Chinese government, yet they charge on causing damage. There should really be a law against what Google are doing, certainly not socially acceptable.
Interesting how closely the US Government backs Google in this dispute. They recently stated that this shows it is too difficult to do business in China. Clearly just propaganda as this dispute has nothing to do with difficulty doing business, Google are immaturely pushing a political agenda or a PR stunt and were already able to comply with the Chinese laws. I don't consider Google a force for good in the free world, quite the opposite.
Agreed, the stock holders should now be suing the Google board.
Well said. If Google are allowed to succeed then please understand that you will all live in fear. You may awaken one morning to have your Google services cut off and if Google are as successful as they aspire to be then you will have few alternatives. If you appeal to Google they will investigate in secret by their own standards and not those of society, they will likely not even contact you or give you a chance to defend yourself, and you will have little chance to challenge Google court. If you complain to your Government they will not be able to do anything - they may remind you that Google whipped China in 2010 and there is little they can do!
light source as reported here: http://www.techradar.com/news/gaming/3m-announces-autostereoscopic-3d-gaming-for-mobiles-641343 Perhaps the 3M Scotch Optical Lighting Film combined with a lenticular film? http://www.3m.com/product/information/Optical-Lighting-Film.html Unless the LED light source direction can be changed then the geometry is fixed and very sensitive to the viewing position and viewing distance.
Quoting from their terms of use for Google Docs "Google reserves the right in its sole discretion to decide whether your conduct is inappropriate and whether it complies with these Terms of Service..." "Google may terminate your access for such inappropriate conduct in violation of these Terms of Service at any time ". Google may for any reason terminate your use of this software causing you damage and loss. Be warned that Google have a bad reputation for such behaviour. They are currently threatening China so do you think they give a shit for us little people! Sorry Google I do not accept your right to decide who can use a document editing system on their own netbook - get your soft wares out of their system. Do not allow Google into your computer, you do not want to be in bed with this commercial entity.
A company built on vapour sucking in huge amounts of money selling a lie that has grown to such heights it tries to dictate international politics. Awesome!
Penalizing, damaging, or even insulting others based on your suspicions along is not socially acceptable behaviour. Google are making threads in this case, which I suspect they believe will cause damage. When you are the size of Google you can be expected to meet higher standards.
Google have become the Internet's bully. At least they are giving China a warning. Most people would not even get a warning before Google cuts access! Their actions also show just how incompetent they are at working this Asian countries - calling China out in public is a huge loss of face and very very insulting. Google have not even thought this through well, because they have far less strength in China. I hope China shut the door on Google, and that other nations follow, and we end up with much more diversity in the Internet market.
If a company dominates a market then it is important that it deals with people fairly, by socially acceptable standards. If Google decided not to do business with a racial group, or a religious group, or an anti-Google group, or just an arbitrary group that some algorithm flags, then would you still consider this fair? Clearly society has a say in Google's actions.
Google rule their market ruthlessly. They will suspend people from their services penalising them and causing them damage based on their suspicions alone, based on a secret investigation, without warning, and without giving people a chance to defend themselves. Not to mention how ruthlessly Google filter their own search results. Google do not deserve to dominate any market and they are already too large, and they certainly are in no position to lecture the Chinese government on Internet ethics.
Check the Adwords forum to see numerous complaints: http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/AdWords/ People have also reported being suspended from Google Checkout. Your assumption that they 'usually have good reasons' is wrong. They will suspend people based on their suspicions alone, and they will investigate in secret and you are highly unlikely to be contacted to defend yourself. The bottom line is that they reserve the right to suspend for any reason, which is not fair given their dominance, and not an acceptable standard in the free world.
Google reserves their right to suspend services for any reason in most of their terms and they do exercise this right by suspending people for life from the use of their services. Becoming dependant on Google's services, or being dependant on a market they dominate, leads to a large penalty and damage when services are suspended. Google will suspend services based on their suspicion alone, and clearly use data collected to make decisions. Their investigations are held in secret, based on secret information, giving the victim no chance to defend it, and this is not fair treatment. It has become so bad that employers are asking job applicants if they have ever been suspended from Google services to avoid the risk that Google will suspend the employers services. Clearly something needs to be done, but what can they really do?
You are wrong around the registration requirements for .com.au domain names. Simply selling advertising relating to the domain name is enough to show a 'close a substantial connection' and qualify and the stephenconroy.com.au. name could easily meet these requirements. Things have changed since the auDA took over, and the auDA has allowed the .com.au domain name space to become full of parked monetised websites.
Selling anything related to 'Stephen Conroy' or even selling advertising for anything related to 'Stephen Conroy' would be enough to meet the commercial requirements. Further a new website would not be expected to be up a running immediately and auDA should have given them a chance to correct the issue.
You are wrong about the .com.au domain name needs to have a registered business/trading name related to the domain. The auDA allows monetised website with ads related to the name and this does not need to be your business name. Please so many people are stating misinformation on this issue could someone flag them all as misinformation.
The auDA support squatting but with the limitation that the name can not be sold for 6 months - you just have to put some advertising related to the name on the website to qualify as a monetised website under the auDA policy.
There is no requirement that a .com.au domain name is related to the company name, it just has to be related to their business activity and placing some ads on the website related to the name is enough!
Wrong, simply selling something related to the domain name is enough, such as ads. Things have changed over the paster few years.
You are wrong about the commercial requirements. These are very minimal. Just placing some ads on their website selling Steve dolls or Steve posters etc would be enough to meet the auDA monetised website requirements.