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.
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?
Another corollary to that is that, while the iPhone is only available on one network, it has been available for sale far longer than any of the android phones. I'm not saying that it's a gaurantee that android will overtake iPhone, but it is something to consider in the equation.
It gets even funnier than that. My understanding is that human visual acuity varies, significantly, based on what colors you're looking at too. Your black/white pattern experiment might produce very different results from a multi-color image/pattern.
I read an article a while back about professional athletes having the surgery in order to get better than 20/20 vision. Apparently, you can often go back multiple times (assuming you are willing to and have the money) in order to get better vision. It's supposed to be very popular with baseball pitchers, golfers, and other athletes that rely on their vision for accuracy. (for a while, Tiger Woods was on tv all the time hawking laser eye surgery). The article was asking why this is considered all that different from athletes that take steroids of use blood doping, especially with the potential for newer steroids with minimal side effects. It also questioned what will happen when we can do direct gene therapy to improve things like muscle strength/speed.
The thing is, we have these things called glasses and contact lenses. People with non-20/20 vision can, and often do, wear them to bring their visual acuity up to around 20/20. Anyone that can afford to buy an iPhone 4 can, almost certainly, afford corrective lenses. So, as much as I was also a skeptic about Job's claims initially, it looks like he was right.
Yes. It worked, for the most part, for Exxon and Union Carbide. They'll, probably, just try to play by the play-book those two companies used. History shows that the public has a short memory/attention span.
Please, even on old hardware you shouldn't have a problem hosting pr0n, Goatse, and still have plenty of space/bandwidth to host Rick Astley and Tubgirl.
I could tell you that all of those skills could be acquired in a fraction of the time by checking out a couple good books on electronics from you local library. I could tell you that all of your points are rationalizations to explain away obsessive compulsive behaviors with delusions of grandeur.
But, what would you need reality for. You seem to prefer self delusion.
Not to mention the fact that one train being maintained by professional mechanics is much, much easier to keep running at peak efficiency that the equivalent number of privately owned cars. Regardless of that the "official" specs are for a car, the average owner isn't a mechanic and is, statistically, well know for not maintaining things like tire pressure, engine tuning, etc. Regardless of whether it's well implemented in the case of London's Underground, if you wanted to improve the situation the first place to do it would be to fix the regular maintenance of the trains rather than add more cars.
Welcome to the real world. Here in the real world, in particular in the US, we like freedom and give people a lot of it. However, in the real world, we have things called limited resources that have to be shared by everyone. These include, most topically, fuel and road space. Every extra gallon of fuel your car burns, over the same distance, when compared to someone else (regardless of the fact that you can afford it) helps to drive the price of fuel up for everyone else (the nature of limited resources, supply and demand) and increase this county's dependence on unstable foreign regions like the middle east.
Also, every extra pound of mass your vehicle has in comparison to someone else's vehicle increases the threat it poses to passengers in the other car should you get in an accident with them (And, I can say with virtual certainty that, no, you are not special. You do not have "mad sk1llz" that make you, significantly, any less likely to be responsible for causing a serious car accident than most other people on the road. Everyone can screw up.) The same can, potentially, be said for every inch higher your bumper is versus theirs.
Do I think everyone should be required to buy the same, exact, vehicle (such as was the case in Eastern European countries during the Cold War? No, of course not. But I see nothing wrong with general rules for what is allowed on the shared roads. Defining basic things like mass limits, bumper heights, minimum fuel efficiency, etc. would make life safer for everyone and would still allow people plenty of room to customize their vehicles. Again, the road is a shared resource and you aren't the only one using it. It isn't there to serve as your personal race-track and to give you fahrfegnugen. If you want to feel the thrill of acceleration run up you spine, grow up and join a racing organization.
That is, primarily, what they are using to describe whether, or not, a game "supports" the ATI multi-monitor technology. Some games keep the field of vision and just increase the resolution (or worse, stretch the image if the monitors are set up in a non-standard aspect ratio). This makes the technology worthless. Of course, people with wide-screen monitors have been dealing with this problem for a while with games like Bioshock.
Personally, I think much of the dissing of this stuff is coming from people that have ever used it and/or don't understand how it works but think they do. A lot of people seem to think that the bezels will make more of an impact than they, apparently, really do.
As for the multi-monitor systems in news rooms and at Best Buy, they aren't really the same thing. That stuff has been around for a while. What makes this stuff different is the fact that, for the first time, all of the monitors are showing 3d accelerated images. In the past the hardware/drivers couldn't handle running in 3d accelerated mode over multiple monitors.
Personally, with the deadly safety record of zepplin travel (Hindenburg, Macon, Akron), especially in bad weather, I think I'd rather just book a ticket on one of the Cunard line ships (Queen Mary II, Queen Victoria, etc.). The lowest levels of tickets aren't too expensive for a shared room (compared to first class intercontinental airline tickets), it comes with all food, and it only takes a little more than a week one way.
This is, most likely true. Even considering that the trip takes less time, you, almost certainly, burn more fuel per mile at higher speeds due to the exponential effects of air friction as speed increases. However, what is really going on here are two different research projects with two different goals.
You'll notice that the first article linked to is hosted on "inhabitat.com". Obviously, as an environmental site they are going to focus on the high fuel efficiency tech. They only give a brief mention to the super-sonic tech. This is because the super-sonic tech has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with massively decreasing travel times.
Like it or not, there are people that would like to cut the travel times from one side of the world to the other in half if they could and have the money to burn on a premium service like the Concord were it not way too pricy. As has been said, what killed Concord was a ticket price that was just too high and the issue of sonic booms killing it's ability to fly anywhere other than trans-oceanic flights. If they can do it for cheaper and get rid of the boom, it would, probably, become economical again for the rich and high end business travelers.
What's not mentioned in the summary is that, if the game properly supports it, the screens on the right and left of your setup get tilted inwards a little and your field of view is increased by 3X (assuming a 3 display setup). This means that you get all the view you would normally get on the central screen and a massive amount of the peripheral vision that we all enjoy in real life by never get in gaming. Is there a gap from the screen bezels? Sure, but you barely notice it because you don't focus on the left and right wings. You just focus on the central display and use the other two to detect motion you wouldn't have otherwise seen (such as the enemy approaching you from your left).
As opposed to not noticing it because your ultra-high-resolution single screen setup didn't provide you with the field of view needed to even render that far into your peripheral vision?
Don't get rid of them yet, I haven't had time to try any of my ideas out.
* Using metallic paint to draw a glock 9mm on my skin as if it were in a shoulder holster.
* Drawing a massive, 1 - 2 foot long, penis down my thigh in metallic paint.
* (my favorite) Shaving my head bald, drawing a full Terminator style robot endoskeleton on my back, in metallic paint, including the skull on the back of my head and letting my hair grow back enough to cover it before going to the airport.
Yea, right, you've been watching too much A-Team my friend. There is no magic knock-out drug that makes you go to sleep. There will always be some people for whom it doesn't work or doesn't last long enough on. There will always be a small portion of the population who will have lethal allergic reactions to the anesthetics. This is why we require trained anesthesiologists present during all serious surgeries and people STILL die. Also, good luck with FedEx. There's no way anyoe would trust them to get the luggage there safe and on-time. This goes double for business people with expensive/fragile laptops full of confidential information.
Actually, I agree with you for the most part but have to say that it's not just the locked door. I believe it's the locked door paired with 9/11. As others have pointed out, before 9/11 no-one ever thought of the terrorists just running the plane into a building. Even with a locked door, the pilots would have, probably, opened the door to the terrorists in the belief that the worst thing they could do was take the whole plane down and opening the door would just increase the possibility of the hostages being bargained for.
Previous research done by NASA went into designing aircraft bodies which mitigated the ground effects of sonic booms. My understanding was that those experiments produced some promising potential designs. If they made use of that tech, the issues most people had with the Concord would disappear.
Slashdot Mirror
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.
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?
Another corollary to that is that, while the iPhone is only available on one network, it has been available for sale far longer than any of the android phones. I'm not saying that it's a gaurantee that android will overtake iPhone, but it is something to consider in the equation.
It gets even funnier than that. My understanding is that human visual acuity varies, significantly, based on what colors you're looking at too. Your black/white pattern experiment might produce very different results from a multi-color image/pattern.
I read an article a while back about professional athletes having the surgery in order to get better than 20/20 vision. Apparently, you can often go back multiple times (assuming you are willing to and have the money) in order to get better vision. It's supposed to be very popular with baseball pitchers, golfers, and other athletes that rely on their vision for accuracy. (for a while, Tiger Woods was on tv all the time hawking laser eye surgery). The article was asking why this is considered all that different from athletes that take steroids of use blood doping, especially with the potential for newer steroids with minimal side effects. It also questioned what will happen when we can do direct gene therapy to improve things like muscle strength/speed.
The thing is, we have these things called glasses and contact lenses. People with non-20/20 vision can, and often do, wear them to bring their visual acuity up to around 20/20. Anyone that can afford to buy an iPhone 4 can, almost certainly, afford corrective lenses. So, as much as I was also a skeptic about Job's claims initially, it looks like he was right.
They're just lucky it wasn't the FCC. They'd have used on of their destroyers to "drop the hammer" on their asses.
That's just in the model designed for the generals. Can't have a four star with erectile dysfunction starting WWIII now can we...
Google dance if you want to,
If it helps you search online.
MSN don't dance,
and if they don't dance,
well they're no search engine of mine.
Yes. It worked, for the most part, for Exxon and Union Carbide. They'll, probably, just try to play by the play-book those two companies used. History shows that the public has a short memory/attention span.
Please, even on old hardware you shouldn't have a problem hosting pr0n, Goatse, and still have plenty of space/bandwidth to host Rick Astley and Tubgirl.
I could tell you that all of those skills could be acquired in a fraction of the time by checking out a couple good books on electronics from you local library. I could tell you that all of your points are rationalizations to explain away obsessive compulsive behaviors with delusions of grandeur.
But, what would you need reality for. You seem to prefer self delusion.
Not to mention the fact that one train being maintained by professional mechanics is much, much easier to keep running at peak efficiency that the equivalent number of privately owned cars. Regardless of that the "official" specs are for a car, the average owner isn't a mechanic and is, statistically, well know for not maintaining things like tire pressure, engine tuning, etc. Regardless of whether it's well implemented in the case of London's Underground, if you wanted to improve the situation the first place to do it would be to fix the regular maintenance of the trains rather than add more cars.
Welcome to the real world. Here in the real world, in particular in the US, we like freedom and give people a lot of it. However, in the real world, we have things called limited resources that have to be shared by everyone. These include, most topically, fuel and road space. Every extra gallon of fuel your car burns, over the same distance, when compared to someone else (regardless of the fact that you can afford it) helps to drive the price of fuel up for everyone else (the nature of limited resources, supply and demand) and increase this county's dependence on unstable foreign regions like the middle east.
Also, every extra pound of mass your vehicle has in comparison to someone else's vehicle increases the threat it poses to passengers in the other car should you get in an accident with them (And, I can say with virtual certainty that, no, you are not special. You do not have "mad sk1llz" that make you, significantly, any less likely to be responsible for causing a serious car accident than most other people on the road. Everyone can screw up.) The same can, potentially, be said for every inch higher your bumper is versus theirs.
Do I think everyone should be required to buy the same, exact, vehicle (such as was the case in Eastern European countries during the Cold War? No, of course not. But I see nothing wrong with general rules for what is allowed on the shared roads. Defining basic things like mass limits, bumper heights, minimum fuel efficiency, etc. would make life safer for everyone and would still allow people plenty of room to customize their vehicles. Again, the road is a shared resource and you aren't the only one using it. It isn't there to serve as your personal race-track and to give you fahrfegnugen. If you want to feel the thrill of acceleration run up you spine, grow up and join a racing organization.
No, but if they really were accepting bribes and doing drugs then there is a nice cell waiting for them in Federal prison.
Or, the ones selling mountain lion repellent. Sure, I've never seen a mountain lion around here, but don't you think we're about due for one?
That is, primarily, what they are using to describe whether, or not, a game "supports" the ATI multi-monitor technology. Some games keep the field of vision and just increase the resolution (or worse, stretch the image if the monitors are set up in a non-standard aspect ratio). This makes the technology worthless. Of course, people with wide-screen monitors have been dealing with this problem for a while with games like Bioshock.
Personally, I think much of the dissing of this stuff is coming from people that have ever used it and/or don't understand how it works but think they do. A lot of people seem to think that the bezels will make more of an impact than they, apparently, really do.
As for the multi-monitor systems in news rooms and at Best Buy, they aren't really the same thing. That stuff has been around for a while. What makes this stuff different is the fact that, for the first time, all of the monitors are showing 3d accelerated images. In the past the hardware/drivers couldn't handle running in 3d accelerated mode over multiple monitors.
Personally, with the deadly safety record of zepplin travel (Hindenburg, Macon, Akron), especially in bad weather, I think I'd rather just book a ticket on one of the Cunard line ships (Queen Mary II, Queen Victoria, etc.). The lowest levels of tickets aren't too expensive for a shared room (compared to first class intercontinental airline tickets), it comes with all food, and it only takes a little more than a week one way.
This is, most likely true. Even considering that the trip takes less time, you, almost certainly, burn more fuel per mile at higher speeds due to the exponential effects of air friction as speed increases. However, what is really going on here are two different research projects with two different goals.
You'll notice that the first article linked to is hosted on "inhabitat.com". Obviously, as an environmental site they are going to focus on the high fuel efficiency tech. They only give a brief mention to the super-sonic tech. This is because the super-sonic tech has nothing to do with environmentalism and everything to do with massively decreasing travel times.
Like it or not, there are people that would like to cut the travel times from one side of the world to the other in half if they could and have the money to burn on a premium service like the Concord were it not way too pricy. As has been said, what killed Concord was a ticket price that was just too high and the issue of sonic booms killing it's ability to fly anywhere other than trans-oceanic flights. If they can do it for cheaper and get rid of the boom, it would, probably, become economical again for the rich and high end business travelers.
What's not mentioned in the summary is that, if the game properly supports it, the screens on the right and left of your setup get tilted inwards a little and your field of view is increased by 3X (assuming a 3 display setup). This means that you get all the view you would normally get on the central screen and a massive amount of the peripheral vision that we all enjoy in real life by never get in gaming. Is there a gap from the screen bezels? Sure, but you barely notice it because you don't focus on the left and right wings. You just focus on the central display and use the other two to detect motion you wouldn't have otherwise seen (such as the enemy approaching you from your left).
As opposed to not noticing it because your ultra-high-resolution single screen setup didn't provide you with the field of view needed to even render that far into your peripheral vision?
Don't get rid of them yet, I haven't had time to try any of my ideas out.
* Using metallic paint to draw a glock 9mm on my skin as if it were in a shoulder holster.
* Drawing a massive, 1 - 2 foot long, penis down my thigh in metallic paint.
* (my favorite) Shaving my head bald, drawing a full Terminator style robot endoskeleton on my back, in metallic paint, including the skull on the back of my head and letting my hair grow back enough to cover it before going to the airport.
Yea, right, you've been watching too much A-Team my friend. There is no magic knock-out drug that makes you go to sleep. There will always be some people for whom it doesn't work or doesn't last long enough on. There will always be a small portion of the population who will have lethal allergic reactions to the anesthetics. This is why we require trained anesthesiologists present during all serious surgeries and people STILL die. Also, good luck with FedEx. There's no way anyoe would trust them to get the luggage there safe and on-time. This goes double for business people with expensive/fragile laptops full of confidential information.
Actually, I agree with you for the most part but have to say that it's not just the locked door. I believe it's the locked door paired with 9/11. As others have pointed out, before 9/11 no-one ever thought of the terrorists just running the plane into a building. Even with a locked door, the pilots would have, probably, opened the door to the terrorists in the belief that the worst thing they could do was take the whole plane down and opening the door would just increase the possibility of the hostages being bargained for.
Previous research done by NASA went into designing aircraft bodies which mitigated the ground effects of sonic booms. My understanding was that those experiments produced some promising potential designs. If they made use of that tech, the issues most people had with the Concord would disappear.