A road approaching the horizon is further away in the Z direction. A rectangular screen, seen from a direction perpendicular to its surface, is not. You may want to google "perspective projection". (Although of course our eyes are not a normal perspective projection, since our retinas are curved, and the image is flipped. Good thing we have that "visual cortex" thing I mentioned!)
And I have no idea where he gets "dual elongated trapezoids". I assume he's TRYING to describe what a rectangle would look like in a fisheye lens (which, again, is not how humans see things), but that shape would have curved edges. "dual trapezoids" is a very poor (and irrelevant) approximation.
Cinema screens are curved because cinema projectors use an anamorphic lens, and the curved screen is necessary to cancel that distortion out.
TV screens are not being projected on with an anamorphic lens. There is equal spacing between each pixel on a TV. So making a TV screen curved simply ADDS the distortion that curved cinema screens are designed to prevent.
This is the worst part though:
The slight curvature also reduces visual geometric distortion. When you watch a perfectly flat TV screen, Soneira explained, the corners of the screen are farther away than the center so they appear smaller.
"As a result, the eye doesn't see the screen as a perfect rectangle - it actually sees dual elongated trapezoids, which is keystone geometric distortion," Soneira wrote.
WHAT? The screen is a rectangle, so our eye sees it as a rectangle, just as it would any other rectangular object! The visual cortex of our brain makes sure of that. How can someone who works with TVs not understand basic concepts of human vision?
Do you really need evidence for the fact that terms of service, in most cases, are legally binding? I think that much should be obvious.
The question, if anything, is not "can they brick services if you don't agree to the terms?" It's "can you sell a TV advertising certain features, then change your terms in the future making those features unavailable to certain people?"
I am no lawyer but I am inclined to say "yes". The legal precedent seems to be "you can change your terms of service AS LONG AS you notify your users". Which LG is doing.
Though one could argue that it was not clear from the marketing that any agreement was required in order to use the advertised services. If there is any case against LG, I would guess that would be it.
Exactly. The only question is whether or not they used misleading marketing. I imagine they need some fine print on the box, saying "you must agree to these terms to use these services". And given that they have an army of lawyers, I would be surprised if they neglected to do that.
Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties?
If by "right" you mean "legal right", then yes. Next question.
50 years with no success? Really? Anyone with a functional brain can "solve" it quite easily. For example. I don't have a moral system. So I'll choose the action that benefits me most. Since I'm more likely to be imprisoned for manslaughter rather than criminal negligence, I'll choose to do nothing. Simple.
"Well I DO have a moral system!" you say. Well then do what that moral system tells you to do. If the answer is indeterminate, then your moral system is logically inconsistent. Simple.
Also, I can't imagine this "random" system having much success. The legal implications alone would be tremendous. Not to mention the fact that there's no way I would buy such a vehicle.
should a robotic car sacrifice its owner’s life, in order to spare two strangers?
If such a car exists, I won't buy it, that's for sure! I'll buy from another car manufacturer. I imagine most people would feel similarly. Are you suggesting that there should be a law that all automated vehicles have this behavior? Ha! Good luck finding a politician who's willing to take that up.
all other options point to a chaos of litigation, or a monstrous, machine-assisted Battle Royale, as everyone’s robots—automotive or otherwise—prioritize their owners’ safety above all else, and take natural selection to the open road
We already have human drivers that prioritize their own safety above all else (I know I do!). Replacing these with superior robot drivers could only make things better, no?
the leap from a crash-reduced world to a completely crash-free one is an assumption
Only an idiot would make that assumption. Stop treating your readers like idiots. Oh wait, it's Popular Science. Never mind.
Even if it were possible to simply order all robots to never hurt a person, unless they suddenly able to conquer the laws of physics, or banish the Blue Screen of Death in all its vicissitudes, large automated machines are going to roll or stumble or topple into people.
This is NOT a big deal. The patent is very specific, to the point where it would be almost impossible to infringe (and equally difficult to find prior art). They didn't patent "take a picture with a white background.". They patented having a studio arrangement with a background comprising a white cyclorama, captured with an 85mm lens, configured with an ISO settings of 320 and f-stop value of 5.6, with an elevated platform positioned between the platform and background, with front and rear light sources in the longitudinal axis... and it goes on for several pages.
There is NO WAY anyone will be hurt by this patent. It's business as usual. I know you guys love getting mad at big companies, but cool it, you just look silly.
Doesn't EVERYTHING (as we know it) exist in the space-time continuum? Now excuse me as my space-time motor neurons move my space-time legs so I can go get some space-time coffee.
We have work to do on four big areas: feature parity (especially for commenting); the overall UI, especially in terms of information density and headline scanning; plain old bugs; and, lastly, the need for a better framework for communicating about the How and the Why of this process
Those are exactly the problems I care about. Mainly information density; I want to see the same amount of information on the screen as I did before. Or at least 75%. It's more like 25% right now. Anyway, I'm glad someone is paying attention.
It would have been nice to hear this earlier though. Maybe you do have people *listening* to the complaints, but it would be nice if someone *responded* to them, and in a human manner.
Slashdot Mirror
My body is a big swarm of atoms but somehow I'm able to tell when a piece of food is within my mouth. Go figure.
Yes, our eyes don't really "see" *anything*, our brain does. I should have been more literal I suppose.
A road approaching the horizon is further away in the Z direction. A rectangular screen, seen from a direction perpendicular to its surface, is not. You may want to google "perspective projection". (Although of course our eyes are not a normal perspective projection, since our retinas are curved, and the image is flipped. Good thing we have that "visual cortex" thing I mentioned!)
And I have no idea where he gets "dual elongated trapezoids". I assume he's TRYING to describe what a rectangle would look like in a fisheye lens (which, again, is not how humans see things), but that shape would have curved edges. "dual trapezoids" is a very poor (and irrelevant) approximation.
TV screens are not being projected on with an anamorphic lens. There is equal spacing between each pixel on a TV. So making a TV screen curved simply ADDS the distortion that curved cinema screens are designed to prevent.
This is the worst part though:
The slight curvature also reduces visual geometric distortion. When you watch a perfectly flat TV screen, Soneira explained, the corners of the screen are farther away than the center so they appear smaller. "As a result, the eye doesn't see the screen as a perfect rectangle - it actually sees dual elongated trapezoids, which is keystone geometric distortion," Soneira wrote.
WHAT? The screen is a rectangle, so our eye sees it as a rectangle, just as it would any other rectangular object! The visual cortex of our brain makes sure of that. How can someone who works with TVs not understand basic concepts of human vision?
I'm gonna have my consciousness uploaded to a robot by then, have fun with your frail human bodies, suckers.
b-but they both have "neural" in the name! and I read about it in Popular Science!
Do you really need evidence for the fact that terms of service, in most cases, are legally binding? I think that much should be obvious.
The question, if anything, is not "can they brick services if you don't agree to the terms?" It's "can you sell a TV advertising certain features, then change your terms in the future making those features unavailable to certain people?"
I am no lawyer but I am inclined to say "yes". The legal precedent seems to be "you can change your terms of service AS LONG AS you notify your users". Which LG is doing.
Though one could argue that it was not clear from the marketing that any agreement was required in order to use the advertised services. If there is any case against LG, I would guess that would be it.
Exactly. The only question is whether or not they used misleading marketing. I imagine they need some fine print on the box, saying "you must agree to these terms to use these services". And given that they have an army of lawyers, I would be surprised if they neglected to do that.
Does a manufacturer have the right to "brick" certain integral services just because the end user doesn't feel comfortable sharing a bunch of info with LG and other, unnamed third parties?
If by "right" you mean "legal right", then yes. Next question.
The federal government would need a warrant from a judge if it wants the cooperation of California officials
I'm pretty sure the NSA can already get a lot of information WITHOUT cooperating with state government officials.
50 years with no success? Really? Anyone with a functional brain can "solve" it quite easily. For example. I don't have a moral system. So I'll choose the action that benefits me most. Since I'm more likely to be imprisoned for manslaughter rather than criminal negligence, I'll choose to do nothing. Simple.
"Well I DO have a moral system!" you say. Well then do what that moral system tells you to do. If the answer is indeterminate, then your moral system is logically inconsistent. Simple.
Also, I can't imagine this "random" system having much success. The legal implications alone would be tremendous. Not to mention the fact that there's no way I would buy such a vehicle.
should a robotic car sacrifice its owner’s life, in order to spare two strangers?
If such a car exists, I won't buy it, that's for sure! I'll buy from another car manufacturer. I imagine most people would feel similarly. Are you suggesting that there should be a law that all automated vehicles have this behavior? Ha! Good luck finding a politician who's willing to take that up.
all other options point to a chaos of litigation, or a monstrous, machine-assisted Battle Royale, as everyone’s robots—automotive or otherwise—prioritize their owners’ safety above all else, and take natural selection to the open road
We already have human drivers that prioritize their own safety above all else (I know I do!). Replacing these with superior robot drivers could only make things better, no?
the leap from a crash-reduced world to a completely crash-free one is an assumption
Only an idiot would make that assumption. Stop treating your readers like idiots. Oh wait, it's Popular Science. Never mind.
Even if it were possible to simply order all robots to never hurt a person, unless they suddenly able to conquer the laws of physics, or banish the Blue Screen of Death in all its vicissitudes, large automated machines are going to roll or stumble or topple into people.
More often than human drivers already do?
Irony. Humorous coincidence. Learn the difference.
1,300,000,000 men to every 1,000,000,000 women!
That's three hundred million men!
BIG NUMBERS BETTER.
More money for me!
My CD collection features such gems as "Microsoft Windows 95", "Turbo Tax Deluxe 2003" and "The Logical Journey of the Zoombinis"
Filling the entirety of Death Valley with water would lower the water level by 1-2 millimeters, optimistically.
Even if there were hundreds of Death Valleys, it wouldn't save any cities from being destroyed.
This is NOT a big deal. The patent is very specific, to the point where it would be almost impossible to infringe (and equally difficult to find prior art). They didn't patent "take a picture with a white background.". They patented having a studio arrangement with a background comprising a white cyclorama, captured with an 85mm lens, configured with an ISO settings of 320 and f-stop value of 5.6, with an elevated platform positioned between the platform and background, with front and rear light sources in the longitudinal axis... and it goes on for several pages.
There is NO WAY anyone will be hurt by this patent. It's business as usual. I know you guys love getting mad at big companies, but cool it, you just look silly.
Doesn't EVERYTHING (as we know it) exist in the space-time continuum? Now excuse me as my space-time motor neurons move my space-time legs so I can go get some space-time coffee.
I thought this effect had been well-known for many years. It's basic psychology.
It's a bit more like "warifying gamefare"
Yes. That is what companies do, they make money. Astute observation.
Oh I dunno, there's the whole ".NET features like garbage collection, generics, and reflection" part. You might have missed it.
We have work to do on four big areas: feature parity (especially for commenting); the overall UI, especially in terms of information density and headline scanning; plain old bugs; and, lastly, the need for a better framework for communicating about the How and the Why of this process
Those are exactly the problems I care about. Mainly information density; I want to see the same amount of information on the screen as I did before. Or at least 75%. It's more like 25% right now. Anyway, I'm glad someone is paying attention.
It would have been nice to hear this earlier though. Maybe you do have people *listening* to the complaints, but it would be nice if someone *responded* to them, and in a human manner.