This effort is nothing new and is largely an exercise in committee meetings. You can find a better overview of the current state of 3D for the web on 3dcompression.com.
Roughly there are 3 reasons 3D on the web doesn't work: a) Bandwidth -- interesting 3D data files are often larger than interesting video, so they need even more compression and bandwidth b) Content -- it's hard to make good 3D applications -- when better 3D cameras are available, we'll start seeing 3D movies and 3D television on the web. c) It's too early for standards -- no standard is going to catch on until the above two problems are solved.
Disclaimer -- I created 3dcompression.com, and I work in this area. But I will happily say that the 3 objections above apply to my own work as well as to anyone else's work in the field right now.
Read the Journal's website, folks -- it's a psych journal, not a mol-bio/physics/hard-science journal. Most of the posts here are getting this wrong.
This is in fact the reason why this journal is such a great idea. As a social science, the field of psychology has a much greater problem than fields like physics with dubious positive experiments getting overhyped -- the media will hype the one study that says the Internet turns kids into axe murders, but it doesn't mention the 99 other studies that found no relation.
Feynmann, in fact, wrote an article called 'Cargo-Cult Science', in which he attacked the discipline of psychology for not repeating experiments to check old results. Yes, he would 100% approve of this new journal.
I'd rather be referred to as a Lederman, Hawking or Fermat. Besides, fewer Manhattan-project jokes.
Fermat was a practicing lawyer who incorrectly claimed he had proven a certain theorem. 300 years later, a 'geek' finally proved it. He sounds more like a PHB to me than an Einstein...
1. VRML was designed by committee. 'nuff said
2. 3D files are large and need compression -- see http://www.3dcompression.com
3. Redoing a 2D web browser in 3D will never work. 3D is only necessary for new or different apps that can't be done in 2D. Which apps? I don't know yet, but I think some 15 year old hacker will invent them once the 3D compression tech needed is out there.
Their deal is a trick; read the article. The article states they're offering authors a cut of the 'NET revenue' instead of the gross. In english, this means, essentially zero money. Just about every movie in hollywood uses accounting tricks to end up having zero net revenue, so that newbies will sign deals for a % of net and get nothing, and the Spielbergs of the world can get a % of gross. If this company is offering a % of the net, they're clearly planning the same thing. They get software rights; the authors get nothing.
Slashdot Mirror
This effort is nothing new and is largely an exercise in committee meetings. You can find a better overview of the current state of 3D for the web on 3dcompression.com.
Roughly there are 3 reasons 3D on the web doesn't work:
a) Bandwidth -- interesting 3D data files are often larger than interesting video, so they need even more compression and bandwidth
b) Content -- it's hard to make good 3D applications -- when better 3D cameras are available, we'll start seeing 3D movies and 3D television on the web.
c) It's too early for standards -- no standard is going to catch on until the above two problems are solved.
Disclaimer -- I created 3dcompression.com, and I work in this area. But I will happily say that the 3 objections above apply to my own work as well as to anyone else's work in the field right now.
Read the Journal's website, folks -- it's a psych journal, not a mol-bio/physics/hard-science journal. Most of the posts here are getting this wrong.
This is in fact the reason why this journal is such a great idea. As a social science, the field of psychology has a much greater problem than fields like physics with dubious positive experiments getting overhyped -- the media will hype the one study that says the Internet turns kids into axe murders, but it doesn't mention the 99 other studies that found no relation.
Feynmann, in fact, wrote an article called 'Cargo-Cult Science', in which he attacked the discipline of psychology for not repeating experiments to check old results. Yes, he would 100% approve of this new journal.
I'd rather be referred to as a Lederman, Hawking or Fermat. Besides, fewer Manhattan-project jokes.
Fermat was a practicing lawyer who incorrectly claimed he had proven a certain theorem. 300 years later, a 'geek' finally proved it. He sounds more like a PHB to me than an Einstein...
1. VRML was designed by committee. 'nuff said
2. 3D files are large and need compression -- see http://www.3dcompression.com
3. Redoing a 2D web browser in 3D will never work. 3D is only necessary for new or different apps that can't be done in 2D. Which apps? I don't know yet, but I think some 15 year old hacker will invent them once the 3D compression tech needed is out there.
Their deal is a trick; read the article. The article states they're offering authors a cut of the 'NET revenue' instead of the gross. In english, this means, essentially zero money. Just about every movie in hollywood uses accounting tricks to end up having zero net revenue, so that newbies will sign deals for a % of net and get nothing, and the Spielbergs of the world can get a % of gross. If this company is offering a % of the net, they're clearly planning the same thing. They get software rights; the authors get nothing.