It's funny that a bunch of Muslims get all upset over a picture of Prophet Mohammad Bomb-for-a-head, while not making nearly quite a fuss over a bunch of Danish Muslim leaders distributing their own image of Paedophile Mohammed (an obvious reference to Mo having a 9 year old girl for a wife[1]) in order to incite more hatred against Danish cartoonists.
The fanatics seem to be oblivious to the Streisand Effect. The Mohammad Image Archive makes for fascinating reading.
[1] It's immaculate paraphilia, not paedophilia. Honest, m'lud!
You just have to look through a pinhole placed close to your eye. By forcing angle of incidence and location of incidence to be correlated, every point on your retina is illuminated by a path that passes through a unique point on the surface of your eye..
You get a similar effect where you look at a distant, tiny but bright point of light with an unfocused eye. The effect is a bit like that often seen on movies where the a scene begins with the camera staring unfocused at sparkling water or distant streetlamps and revealing the shape of the camera's mechanical iris.
Not that looking through a pinhole would make the silly display in TFA work any better.
Yay! After my first read of all the Slashdot comments, I couldn't find anyone who clearly described the problem of focusing, let alone provide a halfway reasonable description of the effect of having simple LEDs on your eye.
That you had to be moderated +5 for saying something that's in my view, blindingly obvious, yet far more scientifically sound than almost all of the posts on this topic says quite a lot about the majority of Slashdot users.
BTW, a tiny LED sitting on your eye would probably produce a fuzzy spot that's shaped like a very fuzzy (but not Gaussian) disc that spans 5-15 degrees of arc in your visual field. The front nodal point is fairly deep within the cornea. It's not quite flooding the whole retina, but certainly the whole fovea.
You're right about the diffraction limit. That's why I suggested in my previous post that the holographic trick of contriving millions of simple emitters to produce the required set of plane waves through interference.
The lens system of the eye (cornea, crystalline lens and the overall air/liquid interface) is a kind of parallel optical computer that applies a function to both the angle of incidence and the location of incidence in order that light coming from points on a roughly planar region in the scene map neatly to points on the retina. Interestingly, if you look through a pinhole, you force the angles of incidence and the location of incidence to be correlated and the lens system of your eye becomes a spatial modulator - You can see the imperfections on the cornea, the shape of any cataracts you have and even the outline and surface details of the adjustable lens if it's a bit too small to span the pupil.
Anyway, the lens system is mainly geared for mapping angle of incidence to points on the retina. The location of incidence part is there so more than one point on the surface of your eye can contribute to gathering light. The parallax errors of the set of extra points is what causes the lack of focus for points outside the current scene focal plane.
Conventional helmet mounted displays work by using lenses to make their small-and-near displays appear big-and-far. In other words, every pixel in the display reaches your eye as a plane wave whose direction dictates the point on your retina that gets illuminated. The effect is ruined when the optics are bumped even slightly, so these HMDs are a real source of eyestrain. Just your eye moving around is enough to screw up the focus on units with very small display elements.
Retinal projection systems work by using detailed knowledge of the lens system of your eye to beam pixels at different parts of the cornea in a way that sort of bypasses the natural function of the lens system. The projector is far too close for the eye to focus. If you could, you'd find the projector nothing more than a tiny light that occupies only a small point of your vision. RPs work by being way out of focus (so they appear large in your field of vision) and achieving their sharpness by using the parallax errors as a feature - something that can only be done with small, tightly controlled laser beams.
A contact lens display system would require the ability to emit thousands of precisely aimed beams or plane waves. At the cornea, the location of the emitters is almost irrelevant. If they emitted spherical waves (as LEDs tend to do), the patch of light from each emitter would span a large part of the entire retina. The 7x8 display in TFA would appear as a 7x8 Photoshop image subject to something like a Gaussian blur of a radius close to the size of the entire image (but on a much larger canvas).
That's where holography comes in. To avoid needing detailed knowledge of the eye, the holographic system uses millions of simple emitters programmed to effectively generate the required plane waves through constructive and destructive interference. No extra lens system is required.
The computational power might be a wee challenge, though. Otherwise the holographic contact lens system is elegant in its simplicity.
Nah, IIRC, a harmonic (or something that might be called a "subharmonic" in this case) cannot cause resonance. It has to be the base frequency. The plot of energy transfer against the applied frequency is a single tit-shape curve. When wavelength is used for the graph's domain, much of the tit is confined within a fraction of a unit deviation in wavelength.
The harmonic of one oscillator can, of course, cause another object to resonate when that frequency is close to the base frequency of the receiving object.
Nah! The lowest resonant frequency of a water molecule is about 22 GHz. The concept of resonance doesn't really apply anyway, since the water molecules bumping into each other spoil any resonance.
Instead, microwave ovens work by causing the water molecules to rapidly turn and knock each other about. The effect works for a wide range of frequencies. 2.54 GHz was chosen because it works well enough and didn't interfere with existing communication frequencies.
Ahhh, right! So, in situations like this, filibusters don't actually deny anyone else a voice because the whole process is not subject to the sort of useless time limit you'd find on a TV interview, then.
What if a unit was developed that didn't have to be worn and could affect large groups of people...
You mean, like a giant fourteen-storey high electromechanical digital clock with a huge, vibrating magnetic field lobe poking out from one side of the device?
The results of the experiments are consistent with the mind-numbingly banality of the reports of God, Satan, Heaven, Hell and astral travelling trips.
There's a good reason people can spend an hour describing what they did on a day out at the beach, whereas people who claim to have experienced Heaven can't bear to describe it for more than a few minutes. Heaven's all 'wonderful,' you see, but nothing in the recount of Heaven is anything to write home about. Quite a lot of recounts of Heaven are pretty tasteless, rather Hellish, even.
In contrast, one who is recalling a day out at the beach will have no trouble identifying what it was about the experience that made them happy.
Therefore it's far more plausible that in a Heaven NDE, the 'Wonderful' button was being directly stimulated so that nothing in the experience need be interesting at all.
It's because of Persinger's work that I regard fervent religious behaviour as "Right Amydaloidal Masturbation" (RAMming for short).
In a similar way that Ren & Stimpy's Happy Helmet directly stimulates the pleasure centres of the brain or Ford Prefect's bit of wire pulls a robot's Happy pin high, RAMming directly stimulates a person's sense of God or 'truth' or whatever.
>> Obviously you've never tried to use one of the new Sony Handycam thingys. Its DRM makes it >> impossible to edit movies you create with your own camera unless you're willing to put up >> with the DRM enforced degradation. > > I've got one. Editing them is for nerds and wannabe directors.
Nonsense. Both video and still photos require editing. With stills, the editing is done by excluding the crap photos from collection you show to other people and sometimes a bit of cropping. With video, throwing away half the footage in order to produce a worthwhile clip is not uncommon. Subjecting people to unedited video and/or holiday snaps is just... horridible.
Anyway, you don't seem at all phased by the artificial restriction placed on the video camera that makes editing futile. Would you be happy with a phone that muffles the voices of people calling from Tasmania?
>> You can no longer buy a DVD player that plays DiVX files. > > Completely untrue: > > [link to Samsung-DVD-HD860]
Ooooh nice! I stand corrected on that point.
>> You could in principle release DRM-enabled stuff that just happens to be tagged with no >> restrictions, but that could be very, very expensive. > > Pure speculation, your honour. Current generation DVD players have to (legally) be > unlocked, or unlockable, in some parts of the world - in others, no attempt to restrict > their availability would succeed due to this or that treaty or law.
I'm not talking about the consumer's ability to buy and view/play stuff without having their appliances demand an oath of fealty and a demonstration of brand loyalty. I'm talking about the feasibility of creative types to release stuff for free when they want to.
If we get to the stage where the ability to play stuff in free formats are forbidden through technological means and the cost of mere certification is prohibitively expensive for anyone but the likes of giant record companies, we have a real problem: Only the richest would be permitted to create and distribute stuff.
Obviously you've never tried to use one of the new Sony Handycam thingys. Its DRM makes it impossible to edit movies you create with your own camera unless you're willing to put up with the DRM enforced degradation.
You can no longer buy a DVD player that plays DiVX files. It seems that the MPAA has decided that any free high quality format means 'piracy'. You could in principle release DRM-enabled stuff that just happens to be tagged with no restrictions, but that could be very, very expensive.
The idea that DRM-equipped devices will permit the unrestricted playback of stuff not marked as restricted is a myth.
Particularly obnoxious is Section 226. Breaking a technological protection measure (TPM) even if only to play music you legally bought can land you in prison - unless you're one of the 'qualified' persons such as a librarian.
So somehow, the act of pressing a button to activate a machine to kill an unseen animal is itself the 'hunting' experience. Not wandering in rugged bush for hours, stalking and killing the prey, then dragging its carcass up a hill for miles. Just pressing a button on a remote control for the safe and hygienic thrill of execution.
I suppose the blind can be proper photographers too. Just have a friend set up the models, the lighting and the camera. The blind person can then experience the thrill of photography by pressing the shutter release button.
Gasoline is about 34 MJ/L (megajoules per litre) Gasoline is also about 45MJ/kg (megajoules per kilogram).
Aminex's pellets store energy at about a third of the density of gasoline by volume.
Whether you want to consider volume or mass (which amounts to weight in Earth's gravity) depends on the application. A fuel energy dense by weight is not much use if it requires a fuel tank the size of an airship, light as it is, to provide a useful range between refuelings.
Since a car running on pure hygrogen would likely to be using a fuel cell rather than a combustion engine, it's likely that the Aminsex pills in a fuel cell car can yield a bit more milage than gasoline could with an internal combustion engine. You wouldn't want to use gasoline on a fuel cell because it clogs up the fuel cell after a while.
BTW, 1 litre is equal to a cube 10cm across and one litre of water has a mass of one kilogram. That means a 30 litre bottle, say, of Coke should be about 30kg.
"One of the most exciting advances recently has been the announcement of carbon nanofibre technology. This may have the capacity to store up to 70% of hydrogen by weight - an astonishing amount. Typically a metal hydride can store between 2% and 4% by weight - in a heavy structure, but if the new carbon results actually prove to be true then it may be possible for a hydrogen fuel cell vehicle to travel for 5,000 km between refuelling stops. This would render any necessity for a distributed hydrogen infrastructure obsolete as the refuelling could be done either by depot stops, or potentially even through the postal service! Everyone in the hydrogen community is eagerly awaiting the announcement of further news."
I gather that at IBM[1], productivity is unimportant. Most likely, the reason one is employed at IBM is that lower management simply like having timid, subservient people clean shaven and deprived of natural cues to manhood all in order for those people to function as simpering corporate catamites. It makes the bosses feel more potent because they too are mere catamites.
The upper management of IBM are all laughing away, telling ribald jokes while gizzling whisky and Guiness, picking out pork chops that get caught in their whiskers, flirting with the buxom serving wenches and occasionally summoning up a poor member of middle management to some dark and squalid boardroom to give him Special Treatment.
---- [1] IBM stands for "I Be Moved" for the people subjected to the loyalty tests to which they're subjected. IBM doesn't really care which city you live in. They just want to know that you love IBM more than you love your friends,
> Have you ever had two or three managers giving you conflicting deadlines or > different interpretations of the same instructions?
I've never had a corporate job, but I have had multiple bosses in a mildly dilbertesue environment. I just point out the conflict and make it the problem of the bosses.
> Managers don't tend to like it when you favor one over the > other in your priorities
That's usually no problem. If you make it clear to both that one must countermand the other, you can safely evade responsibility. If you can't determine a sensible rank, go by who you like. Nothing bad will happen to you if you cause one boss to suffer and one to have a great time.
> Have you ever been given a completely arbitrary > deadline that you just don't have time to meet,
Lots and lots, but only from one boss of a small company. The deadlines are so outrageous my slimy boss does the lying. I just do what I can, usually what I think is the best job to do. The Company is Not Important.
> I have a boss who ALWAYS wants projects finished by 5pm.
It's probably a TPS report. I trust you've seen Office Space. You know what to do.:)
It's really scary that some people feel the need to go all Cathartic and use the term "White Lie" as if they meant it. Jo Hos go as far to call their lies Theocratic War Strategy. I'm starting to suspect that it's really true that hardly anyone in (the densly populated parts of) the U.S.A. can't cope with life without lying at least once or twice a day?
Lies are poison. People to habitually tell even small lies are doomed to have or to continue to have really crappy lives. No divine justice entity required.
You need a decent monitor, of course.
on
Photoshop for DNA
·
· Score: 1
I use a 3,221,225,472 x 4 super-wide screen Trinitron when I'm editing my own DNA.
If you have an open floor plan, you'll be able to run for miles on the walls in the high (simulated) gravity environment of your apartment without having to turn.
Slashdot Mirror
It's funny that a bunch of Muslims get all upset over a picture of Prophet Mohammad Bomb-for-a-head, while not making nearly quite a fuss over a bunch of Danish Muslim leaders distributing their own image of Paedophile Mohammed (an obvious reference to Mo having a 9 year old girl for a wife[1]) in order to incite more hatred against Danish cartoonists.
The fanatics seem to be oblivious to the Streisand Effect. The Mohammad Image Archive makes for fascinating reading.
[1] It's immaculate paraphilia, not paedophilia. Honest, m'lud!
> Can anyone see dust or debris on their eye ?
Yup. Scratches, too. Lot of scratches.
You just have to look through a pinhole placed close to your eye. By forcing angle of incidence and location of incidence to be correlated, every point on your retina is illuminated by a path that passes through a unique point on the surface of your eye..
You get a similar effect where you look at a distant, tiny but bright point of light with an unfocused eye. The effect is a bit like that often seen on movies where the a scene begins with the camera staring unfocused at sparkling water or distant streetlamps and revealing the shape of the camera's mechanical iris.
Not that looking through a pinhole would make the silly display in TFA work any better.
Yay! After my first read of all the Slashdot comments, I couldn't find anyone who clearly described the problem of focusing, let alone provide a halfway reasonable description of the effect of having simple LEDs on your eye.
That you had to be moderated +5 for saying something that's in my view, blindingly obvious, yet far more scientifically sound than almost all of the posts on this topic says quite a lot about the majority of Slashdot users.
BTW, a tiny LED sitting on your eye would probably produce a fuzzy spot that's shaped like a very fuzzy (but not Gaussian) disc that spans 5-15 degrees of arc in your visual field. The front nodal point is fairly deep within the cornea. It's not quite flooding the whole retina, but certainly the whole fovea.
You're right about the diffraction limit. That's why I suggested in my previous post that the holographic trick of contriving millions of simple emitters to produce the required set of plane waves through interference.
The lens system of the eye (cornea, crystalline lens and the overall air/liquid interface) is a kind of parallel optical computer that applies a function to both the angle of incidence and the location of incidence in order that light coming from points on a roughly planar region in the scene map neatly to points on the retina. Interestingly, if you look through a pinhole, you force the angles of incidence and the location of incidence to be correlated and the lens system of your eye becomes a spatial modulator - You can see the imperfections on the cornea, the shape of any cataracts you have and even the outline and surface details of the adjustable lens if it's a bit too small to span the pupil.
Anyway, the lens system is mainly geared for mapping angle of incidence to points on the retina. The location of incidence part is there so more than one point on the surface of your eye can contribute to gathering light. The parallax errors of the set of extra points is what causes the lack of focus for points outside the current scene focal plane.
Conventional helmet mounted displays work by using lenses to make their small-and-near displays appear big-and-far. In other words, every pixel in the display reaches your eye as a plane wave whose direction dictates the point on your retina that gets illuminated. The effect is ruined when the optics are bumped even slightly, so these HMDs are a real source of eyestrain. Just your eye moving around is enough to screw up the focus on units with very small display elements.
Retinal projection systems work by using detailed knowledge of the lens system of your eye to beam pixels at different parts of the cornea in a way that sort of bypasses the natural function of the lens system. The projector is far too close for the eye to focus. If you could, you'd find the projector nothing more than a tiny light that occupies only a small point of your vision. RPs work by being way out of focus (so they appear large in your field of vision) and achieving their sharpness by using the parallax errors as a feature - something that can only be done with small, tightly controlled laser beams.
A contact lens display system would require the ability to emit thousands of precisely aimed beams or plane waves. At the cornea, the location of the emitters is almost irrelevant. If they emitted spherical waves (as LEDs tend to do), the patch of light from each emitter would span a large part of the entire retina. The 7x8 display in TFA would appear as a 7x8 Photoshop image subject to something like a Gaussian blur of a radius close to the size of the entire image (but on a much larger canvas).
That's where holography comes in. To avoid needing detailed knowledge of the eye, the holographic system uses millions of simple emitters programmed to effectively generate the required plane waves through constructive and destructive interference. No extra lens system is required.
The computational power might be a wee challenge, though. Otherwise the holographic contact lens system is elegant in its simplicity.
Nah, IIRC, a harmonic (or something that might be called a "subharmonic" in this case) cannot cause resonance. It has to be the base frequency. The plot of energy transfer against the applied frequency is a single tit-shape curve. When wavelength is used for the graph's domain, much of the tit is confined within a fraction of a unit deviation in wavelength.
The harmonic of one oscillator can, of course, cause another object to resonate when that frequency is close to the base frequency of the receiving object.
Nah! The lowest resonant frequency of a water molecule is about 22 GHz. The concept of resonance doesn't really apply anyway, since the water molecules bumping into each other spoil any resonance.
Instead, microwave ovens work by causing the water molecules to rapidly turn and knock each other about. The effect works for a wide range of frequencies. 2.54 GHz was chosen because it works well enough and didn't interfere with existing communication frequencies.
UPS is for really advanced stuff like splitting the atom.
Ship it across the United States and back using FedEx, in a cardboard box marked "Fragile."
Ahhh, right! So, in situations like this, filibusters don't actually deny anyone else a voice because the whole process is not subject to the sort of useless time limit you'd find on a TV interview, then.
Hehe. I like "flywheel of democracy" allusion.
Despite the favourable outcome in this case, isn't a filibuster a kind of Denial Of Service attack on democracy?
You mean, like a giant fourteen-storey high electromechanical digital clock with a huge, vibrating magnetic field lobe poking out from one side of the device?
The results of the experiments are consistent with the mind-numbingly banality of the reports of God, Satan, Heaven, Hell and astral travelling trips.
There's a good reason people can spend an hour describing what they did on a day out at the beach, whereas people who claim to have experienced Heaven can't bear to describe it for more than a few minutes. Heaven's all 'wonderful,' you see, but nothing in the recount of Heaven is anything to write home about. Quite a lot of recounts of Heaven are pretty tasteless, rather Hellish, even.
In contrast, one who is recalling a day out at the beach will have no trouble identifying what it was about the experience that made them happy.
Therefore it's far more plausible that in a Heaven NDE, the 'Wonderful' button was being directly stimulated so that nothing in the experience need be interesting at all.
It's a wirehead thing.
No, my name is not Stinky Wizzleteats.
It's because of Persinger's work that I regard fervent religious behaviour as "Right Amydaloidal Masturbation" (RAMming for short).
In a similar way that Ren & Stimpy's Happy Helmet directly stimulates the pleasure centres of the brain or Ford Prefect's bit of wire pulls a robot's Happy pin high, RAMming directly stimulates a person's sense of God or 'truth' or whatever.
>> Obviously you've never tried to use one of the new Sony Handycam thingys. Its DRM makes it
>> impossible to edit movies you create with your own camera unless you're willing to put up
>> with the DRM enforced degradation.
>
> I've got one. Editing them is for nerds and wannabe directors.
Nonsense. Both video and still photos require editing. With stills, the editing is done by excluding the crap photos from collection you show to other people and sometimes a bit of cropping. With video, throwing away half the footage in order to produce a worthwhile clip is not uncommon. Subjecting people to unedited video and/or holiday snaps is just... horridible.
Anyway, you don't seem at all phased by the artificial restriction placed on the video camera that makes editing futile. Would you be happy with a phone that muffles the voices of people calling from Tasmania?
>> You can no longer buy a DVD player that plays DiVX files.
>
> Completely untrue:
>
> [link to Samsung-DVD-HD860]
Ooooh nice! I stand corrected on that point.
>> You could in principle release DRM-enabled stuff that just happens to be tagged with no
>> restrictions, but that could be very, very expensive.
>
> Pure speculation, your honour. Current generation DVD players have to (legally) be
> unlocked, or unlockable, in some parts of the world - in others, no attempt to restrict
> their availability would succeed due to this or that treaty or law.
I'm not talking about the consumer's ability to buy and view/play stuff without having their appliances demand an oath of fealty and a demonstration of brand loyalty. I'm talking about the feasibility of creative types to release stuff for free when they want to.
If we get to the stage where the ability to play stuff in free formats are forbidden through technological means and the cost of mere certification is prohibitively expensive for anyone but the likes of giant record companies, we have a real problem: Only the richest would be permitted to create and distribute stuff.
Obviously you've never tried to use one of the new Sony Handycam thingys. Its DRM makes it impossible to edit movies you create with your own camera unless you're willing to put up with the DRM enforced degradation.
You can no longer buy a DVD player that plays DiVX files. It seems that the MPAA has decided that any free high quality format means 'piracy'. You could in principle release DRM-enabled stuff that just happens to be tagged with no restrictions, but that could be very, very expensive.
The idea that DRM-equipped devices will permit the unrestricted playback of stuff not marked as restricted is a myth.
Now's a good time to oppose this bill:. pdf
/ 18/1166402040431.html
http://www.brookers.co.nz/bills/new_bills/b061021
Particularly obnoxious is Section 226. Breaking a technological protection measure (TPM) even if only to play music you legally bought can land you in prison - unless you're one of the 'qualified' persons such as a librarian.
This blog I picked from a list of Google hits has a fair bit to say about the bill:
http://artemis.utdc.vuw.ac.nz:8000/pebble/2006/12
So somehow, the act of pressing a button to activate a machine to kill an unseen animal is itself the 'hunting' experience. Not wandering in rugged bush for hours, stalking and killing the prey, then dragging its carcass up a hill for miles. Just pressing a button on a remote control for the safe and hygienic thrill of execution.
I suppose the blind can be proper photographers too. Just have a friend set up the models, the lighting and the camera. The blind person can then experience the thrill of photography by pressing the shutter release button.
Gasoline is about 34 MJ/L (megajoules per litre)
Gasoline is also about 45MJ/kg (megajoules per kilogram).
Aminex's pellets store energy at about a third of the density of gasoline by volume.
Whether you want to consider volume or mass (which amounts to weight in Earth's gravity) depends on the application. A fuel energy dense by weight is not much use if it requires a fuel tank the size of an airship, light as it is, to provide a useful range between refuelings.
Since a car running on pure hygrogen would likely to be using a fuel cell rather than a combustion engine, it's likely that the Aminsex pills in a fuel cell car can yield a bit more milage than gasoline could with an internal combustion engine. You wouldn't want to use gasoline on a fuel cell because it clogs up the fuel cell after a while.
BTW, 1 litre is equal to a cube 10cm across and one litre of water has a mass of one kilogram. That means a 30 litre bottle, say, of Coke should be about 30kg.
Carbon nanotube technology looks far more promising:
http://www.e-sources.com/hydrogen/storage.htmlI gather that at IBM[1], productivity is unimportant. Most likely, the reason one is employed at IBM is that lower management simply like having timid, subservient people clean shaven and deprived of natural cues to manhood all in order for those people to function as simpering corporate catamites. It makes the bosses feel more potent because they too are mere catamites.
The upper management of IBM are all laughing away, telling ribald jokes while gizzling whisky and Guiness, picking out pork chops that get caught in their whiskers, flirting with the buxom serving wenches and occasionally summoning up a poor member of middle management to some dark and squalid boardroom to give him Special Treatment.
----
[1] IBM stands for "I Be Moved" for the people subjected to the loyalty tests to which they're subjected. IBM doesn't really care which city you live in. They just want to know that you love IBM more than you love your friends,
> Have you ever had two or three managers giving you conflicting deadlines or
:)
> different interpretations of the same instructions?
I've never had a corporate job, but I have had multiple bosses in a mildly dilbertesue environment. I just point out the conflict and make it the problem of the bosses.
> Managers don't tend to like it when you favor one over the
> other in your priorities
That's usually no problem. If you make it clear to both that one must countermand the other, you can safely evade responsibility. If you can't determine a sensible rank, go by who you like. Nothing bad will happen to you if you cause one boss to suffer and one to have a great time.
> Have you ever been given a completely arbitrary
> deadline that you just don't have time to meet,
Lots and lots, but only from one boss of a small company. The deadlines are so outrageous my slimy boss does the lying. I just do what I can, usually what I think is the best job to do. The Company is Not Important.
> I have a boss who ALWAYS wants projects finished by 5pm.
It's probably a TPS report. I trust you've seen Office Space. You know what to do.
It's really scary that some people feel the need to go all Cathartic and use the term "White Lie" as if they meant it. Jo Hos go as far to call their lies Theocratic War Strategy. I'm starting to suspect that it's really true that hardly anyone in (the densly populated parts of) the U.S.A. can't cope with life without lying at least once or twice a day?
Lies are poison. People to habitually tell even small lies are doomed to have or to continue to have really crappy lives. No divine justice entity required.
I use a 3,221,225,472 x 4 super-wide screen Trinitron when I'm editing my own DNA.
If you have an open floor plan, you'll be able to run for miles on the walls in the high (simulated) gravity environment of your apartment without having to turn.