You're missing the best and most effective option: two projectors with polarizing filters that are orthogonal from each other, and then the simple non-electronic alternately polarized glasses (some are made from cardboard and you can buy them for a buck). You get a large 3D display distant from your eyes so that focusing is not an issue, the full refresh rate of the projectors, no ghosting effect, and very light glasses.
> "Most of your "3D vision" actually comes from your brain analyzing a stream of 2D images. This is why you get a better 3D feel for movies than for static pictures. In real life, this effect is combined with the brain tracking how your head moves. It is this combination that gives most of the "true" 3D vision effect - *not* stereoscopy."
This is a very hand-waving explanation, and I'm surprised that in your long post you did not use the precise terminology used for this effect: motion parallax. You are correct, though, that it is the primary depth cue; indeed, when an artificial example presents a conflict, it overrides stereoscopy in the brain.
The kind of tech you're describing is not going to be workable even in ten years.
Currently, the best I've seen (and I've gone to most SIGGRAPH conferences so I'm comparing many kinds of 3D displays) is something you can even easily do at home: use two projectors with different polarization, and those simple non-electronic polarized glasses that could be cut out of cardboard.
That's not a problem, because as it's well known in vision research, stereoscopy overrides accommodation. Using a monitor with very fast phosphors to eliminate ghosting, or using a quality head mounted display, eliminates the strain problems people describe, if the refresh rate is high enough.
That's correct--motion parallax is the primary 3D depth cue used by the brain; stereoscopy is the second, and accommodation--depth of focus--a distant third (and one that is overridden by the others so it doesn't need to be recreated, contrary to what the uninformed GP post suggested).
No, we don't need them, because stereoscopy overrides accommodation (depth of focus) as far as 3D cues in the brain. There's no "conflict" because the latter simply gets overridden--ask any expert in vision. A properly executed stereoscopic system, such as shutterglasses with a monitor with greather than 120 Hz refresh AND _fast_phosphors_ (to avoid ghosting) does not create eye strain. An alternative is a good quality head mounted display--the eye there again focuses on a plane, and there's no strain. This focus thing is a red herring.
There's nothing "fake" about the 3D effect--you're not making any sense. What's fake about it? What's "true" 3D effect, now that you're making up random definitions? Other than motion parallax (not a static cue), stereoscopy is the main depth cue used by human vision. It overrides accommodation (depth of focus) and any other depth cues in the brain.
There's no real conflict as stereoscopy always overrides accommodation (depth of focus) in the brain. It's a hierarchy. Motion parallax further overrides stereoscopy. Your post has no support in the vision literature.
The real problem with shutterglasses is ghosting, as phosphors on a typical monitor do not completely extinguish from one redraw to the next. On a monitor with fast phosphors (though not very common you can buy them) that's not an issue even at high refresh rates, and I use shutterglasses for hours at a time without strain. The only way focusing can actually add to the strain is if you keep your eyes very close to the screen, within two feet (which is bad anyway as it raises pressure within the eye and can be a factor towards glaucoma).
There's no justice here because profits were privatized (executives, even ones that got fired, made off with dozens of millions each) while losses were socialized (government bailouts and takeovers).
Re:Uhm, hello? What a ridiculous summary
on
Plane Simple Truth
·
· Score: 1
Planes use less fuel per passenger than a lot of cars--for a passenger, the Boeing 777 does around 60 miles per gallon.
That is so, but one should be on the conservative side and accept change only once it is considered by scholars part of standard English; else, one appears uncultured.
The US has nuclear primacy, making all this largely irrelevant. See Lieber, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. "The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy." International Security 30 4 (Spring 2006): 7-44
Might makes right, moron. Even the ancient Greeks accepted that, as evidenced by the Melian dialogue. The USA shall do whatever it pleases while it remains the greatest military power.
Off-topic, but I have karma to burn and this is a common mistake worth correcting: there is no such word as "nevermind". It's "never mind". From another post:
It's two words. It's not one word made from two, like "somewhere" or "anybody". It's an imperative verb phrase consisting of a verb (MIND) and an adverb modifying it (NEVER, used in a special sense in this case). To see that it is not one word, try conjugating it as one word and see what you get:
I nevermind, you nevermind, he neverminds... I neverminded... etc. See? It doesn't work that way. There is no such verb as "nevermind". The verb is "mind" (as in "don't mind me" or "mind the music and the step"), with "never" as a modifier.
Humans evolved in the African savanna, completely different conditions. Recent developments over the last tens of thousands of years cannot have a significant impact; evolution in humans has been on far larger time scales.
As evidenced by studies of foraging societies surviving into recent times, smaller bands conglomerate seasonally to groups of around a hundred individuals, and also raiding other bands for women has been observed in some. Also, as I said the number 100 is an overestimate. The 4 I used as an example initially is a closer estimate.
> "It has a great deal to do with 'culture' and the structure of the 'society'."
Unless that culture has been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years, it has not resulted in any evolutionary impact, and is irrelevant to this context as behavior is hardwired--Pinker and other evolutionary psychologists have established this quite nicely. The only culture that matters is that of ancient foraging societies, as anything else is a recent invention.
> "Exactly who do you think it was that did that? The alphas? It was all part of their master plan to be coerced into paying for his abandoned offspring?"
There is no "plan". There is sexual selection.
> "The legal system in general, from the courts to the police to the prisons clearly represents the 'beta' placing constraints on 'alpha dominance'. Sure the 'betas' haven't wiped them out, but they aren't even really trying to."
Again, recent development; it has had no impact on the gene pool.
> "If breeding out aggression were the point, their would be sterilization for convicted criminals, their offspring, and perhaps even their siblings."
Way to try to equate alpha with criminal and aggressor. Defensive because of a feeling of inferiority?
> "Finally, "PUA" stuff is hardly 'alpha male' in any real sense; its more like learning interrogation techniques... reading body language, a bit of psychology, etc."
If your view of PUA stuff is limited to Mystery and other typical indirect methods with their routines, or NLP, then yes, but that is a very limited view. These are just making change on the surface and is just the subset of PUA stuff more well known due to media spotlight on Mystery's show or Strauss' book etc. It's the worst possible approach to things.
> "I do to. And a lot of them are little chickenshits when push comes to shove; hardly what I'd call 'dominant alpha males'."
Perhaps a third category then--the shameless manipulators. The indirect method PUAs generally fall in that category, though some people I'm sure do it naturally. But I see no reason to think this could have had any effect on evolution since that category does not make sense in a primitive foraging society.
> "Finally alpha male behaviour as a strategy for procreation is doomed in societies with advanced birthcontrol, and a high percentage of women utilising it."
It might be at some point in the future, but it's still not the case to this day. Sperm Wars gives an estimate that at least 10% of people are not fathered by the person they think is their biological father. Moreover, female behavior helps this explicitly, since women that carry out infidelity tend to be with their lovers rather than their husbands mostly at times when they're ovulating. Thus the sexual selection continues until birth control is truly consistently used and failsafe.
> "I hardly see the alpha male 'sleep with everything that moves strategy' being particularly viable in the future."
There is very little natural selection occurring in an industrialized human society, and eventually the effects of sexual selection will wane as well due to birth control, as noted. But there is no significant selective pressure to revert existing behaviors either, so alpha males will remain unless there is stronger selection against them, and I simply don't see that--there is too much inertia in hardwired human beh
> "Or, they could mate with the guy who will leave (he likely is the alpha and clearly superior), then sleep with a lesser man, get pregnant, and pass off the child as the beta's. That way, everyone wins (except the beta)."
I actually remember studies about this. Good stuff. It's why I forced myself to overcome my betaness.
The Anonymous Coward that replied already crushed your attempt at a comeback, but I'll add my 2 c as well:
> "Yeah, because that works so well."
Many alpha males I see can actually pull it off very well.
> "We could just as easily speculate that the probability of the child surviving drops 100 fold or 1000 fold, if the 'family unit' is just mother + child. Depends entirely on the culture and environment."
These numbers are ludicrous, and you clearly are unable to make a common sense order-of-magnitude estimate. But EVEN if it were 100-fold, it's still less effort for an alpha male to get 100 women in a year's time than help support a pregnant woman and then her and a child. And it has nothing to do with culture; we're talking about ancient hunter-gatherer societies (though modern day alpha males are at least as "productive"; I know several that do dozens of women every year).
> "Only from the males perspective."
That's sufficient for my argument.
> "The women, on the other side, would see a fourfold increase in the chances of their offspring not making it, and unlike the male, they have no way to balance it back out. So why would they choose to mate with the male who leaves them?"
Now pay attention here. It's actually very simple, and has been discussed in books such as Sperm Wars (written by a biologist, don't get confused by the title): the male's alpha genes would result in her male children having similar behavior as him, and thus spread not only his genes but hers as well.
> "And as for the whole 'stoning' thing... assuming that there is roughly a 50/50 male female distribution, then at least 3 males have been denied the chance to reproduce by the dominant males strategy. So they get together, and decide their best strategy at reproducing is eliminating the dominant male. With 3 on 1 the pretty-boy is dead."
The AC already answered this nicely, and I'll add that obviously these "get-together's" don't work out because the alphas remain dominant to this day. Moreover, the term "pretty boy" is misleading, since while that helps, it's not a necessary component of being alpha. Alpha is much more about behavior, and is why if you get good enough at emulating a true alpha male, you actually start getting laid a lot more even if you're not pretty and not rich etc. This is the basic premise of much of the modern PUA movements, for example.
This is bone-headed thinking. The most likely implication is in fact that it is advantageous that at least a fraction of the population to be polygamous, but not all of it (too much competition--there can only be several alpha males in a group sort of thing).
> "Ideal mothers for your children would reject you knowing that you wouldn't provide for them?"
That's why you can fake attachment.
> "Low chance of offspring surviving... mothers would be unable to care for your children, and unable to find mates willing help them?"
I call bullshit. Let's say that the probability of a child surviving drops fourfold if the father does not remain in the relationship for a length for, say, beyond one year after birth. Note that then the father simply needs to impregnate at least four women instead of sticking around with one long-term in order to make up, genetically, for his absence during child-rearing. For more attractive men (better genetically), or more powerful ones (in old times, also translating to better genetically), impregnating at least four women as opposed to just one is far from a tall order.
> "Societal acceptance... e.g. The other men would stone him? Stone the women he cheated with? Stone his offspring?"
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the best and most effective option: two projectors with polarizing filters that are orthogonal from each other, and then the simple non-electronic alternately polarized glasses (some are made from cardboard and you can buy them for a buck). You get a large 3D display distant from your eyes so that focusing is not an issue, the full refresh rate of the projectors, no ghosting effect, and very light glasses.
> "Most of your "3D vision" actually comes from your brain analyzing a stream of 2D images. This is why you get a better 3D feel for movies than for static pictures. In real life, this effect is combined with the brain tracking how your head moves. It is this combination that gives most of the "true" 3D vision effect - *not* stereoscopy."
This is a very hand-waving explanation, and I'm surprised that in your long post you did not use the precise terminology used for this effect: motion parallax. You are correct, though, that it is the primary depth cue; indeed, when an artificial example presents a conflict, it overrides stereoscopy in the brain.
The kind of tech you're describing is not going to be workable even in ten years.
Currently, the best I've seen (and I've gone to most SIGGRAPH conferences so I'm comparing many kinds of 3D displays) is something you can even easily do at home: use two projectors with different polarization, and those simple non-electronic polarized glasses that could be cut out of cardboard.
That's not a problem, because as it's well known in vision research, stereoscopy overrides accommodation. Using a monitor with very fast phosphors to eliminate ghosting, or using a quality head mounted display, eliminates the strain problems people describe, if the refresh rate is high enough.
That's correct--motion parallax is the primary 3D depth cue used by the brain; stereoscopy is the second, and accommodation--depth of focus--a distant third (and one that is overridden by the others so it doesn't need to be recreated, contrary to what the uninformed GP post suggested).
No, we don't need them, because stereoscopy overrides accommodation (depth of focus) as far as 3D cues in the brain. There's no "conflict" because the latter simply gets overridden--ask any expert in vision. A properly executed stereoscopic system, such as shutterglasses with a monitor with greather than 120 Hz refresh AND _fast_phosphors_ (to avoid ghosting) does not create eye strain. An alternative is a good quality head mounted display--the eye there again focuses on a plane, and there's no strain. This focus thing is a red herring.
Simply insufficient refresh rate.
There's nothing "fake" about the 3D effect--you're not making any sense. What's fake about it? What's "true" 3D effect, now that you're making up random definitions? Other than motion parallax (not a static cue), stereoscopy is the main depth cue used by human vision. It overrides accommodation (depth of focus) and any other depth cues in the brain.
There's no real conflict as stereoscopy always overrides accommodation (depth of focus) in the brain. It's a hierarchy. Motion parallax further overrides stereoscopy. Your post has no support in the vision literature.
The real problem with shutterglasses is ghosting, as phosphors on a typical monitor do not completely extinguish from one redraw to the next. On a monitor with fast phosphors (though not very common you can buy them) that's not an issue even at high refresh rates, and I use shutterglasses for hours at a time without strain. The only way focusing can actually add to the strain is if you keep your eyes very close to the screen, within two feet (which is bad anyway as it raises pressure within the eye and can be a factor towards glaucoma).
Your valuation of social Darwinism is purely subjective and out of place in this discussion.
There's no justice here because profits were privatized (executives, even ones that got fired, made off with dozens of millions each) while losses were socialized (government bailouts and takeovers).
Planes use less fuel per passenger than a lot of cars--for a passenger, the Boeing 777 does around 60 miles per gallon.
I'm getting a Blackberry.
That is so, but one should be on the conservative side and accept change only once it is considered by scholars part of standard English; else, one appears uncultured.
The US has nuclear primacy, making all this largely irrelevant. See Lieber, Keir A., and Daryl G. Press. "The End of MAD? The Nuclear Dimension of U.S. Primacy." International Security 30 4 (Spring 2006): 7-44
The US can have a double standard trivially justified by the simple fact that might makes right.
As a Canadian, my only regret in relation to this issue is that Canada has no nuclear weapons.
Might makes right, moron. Even the ancient Greeks accepted that, as evidenced by the Melian dialogue. The USA shall do whatever it pleases while it remains the greatest military power.
Off-topic, but I have karma to burn and this is a common mistake worth correcting: there is no such word as "nevermind". It's "never mind". From another post:
It's two words. It's not one word made from two, like "somewhere" or "anybody". It's an imperative verb phrase consisting of a verb (MIND) and an adverb modifying it (NEVER, used in a special sense in this case). To see that it is not one word, try conjugating it as one word and see what you get:
I nevermind, you nevermind, he neverminds ... I neverminded ... etc. See? It doesn't work that way. There is no such verb as "nevermind". The verb is "mind" (as in "don't mind me" or "mind the music and the step"), with "never" as a modifier.
> "such as desert nomads or inuit"
Humans evolved in the African savanna, completely different conditions. Recent developments over the last tens of thousands of years cannot have a significant impact; evolution in humans has been on far larger time scales.
As evidenced by studies of foraging societies surviving into recent times, smaller bands conglomerate seasonally to groups of around a hundred individuals, and also raiding other bands for women has been observed in some. Also, as I said the number 100 is an overestimate. The 4 I used as an example initially is a closer estimate.
> "It has a great deal to do with 'culture' and the structure of the 'society'."
Unless that culture has been around for at least hundreds of thousands of years, it has not resulted in any evolutionary impact, and is irrelevant to this context as behavior is hardwired--Pinker and other evolutionary psychologists have established this quite nicely. The only culture that matters is that of ancient foraging societies, as anything else is a recent invention.
> "Exactly who do you think it was that did that? The alphas? It was all part of their master plan to be coerced into paying for his abandoned offspring?"
There is no "plan". There is sexual selection.
> "The legal system in general, from the courts to the police to the prisons clearly represents the 'beta' placing constraints on 'alpha dominance'. Sure the 'betas' haven't wiped them out, but they aren't even really trying to."
Again, recent development; it has had no impact on the gene pool.
> "If breeding out aggression were the point, their would be sterilization for convicted criminals, their offspring, and perhaps even their siblings."
Way to try to equate alpha with criminal and aggressor. Defensive because of a feeling of inferiority?
> "Finally, "PUA" stuff is hardly 'alpha male' in any real sense; its more like learning interrogation techniques... reading body language, a bit of psychology, etc."
If your view of PUA stuff is limited to Mystery and other typical indirect methods with their routines, or NLP, then yes, but that is a very limited view. These are just making change on the surface and is just the subset of PUA stuff more well known due to media spotlight on Mystery's show or Strauss' book etc. It's the worst possible approach to things.
> "I do to. And a lot of them are little chickenshits when push comes to shove; hardly what I'd call 'dominant alpha males'."
Perhaps a third category then--the shameless manipulators. The indirect method PUAs generally fall in that category, though some people I'm sure do it naturally. But I see no reason to think this could have had any effect on evolution since that category does not make sense in a primitive foraging society.
> "Finally alpha male behaviour as a strategy for procreation is doomed in societies with advanced birthcontrol, and a high percentage of women utilising it."
It might be at some point in the future, but it's still not the case to this day. Sperm Wars gives an estimate that at least 10% of people are not fathered by the person they think is their biological father. Moreover, female behavior helps this explicitly, since women that carry out infidelity tend to be with their lovers rather than their husbands mostly at times when they're ovulating. Thus the sexual selection continues until birth control is truly consistently used and failsafe.
> "I hardly see the alpha male 'sleep with everything that moves strategy' being particularly viable in the future."
There is very little natural selection occurring in an industrialized human society, and eventually the effects of sexual selection will wane as well due to birth control, as noted. But there is no significant selective pressure to revert existing behaviors either, so alpha males will remain unless there is stronger selection against them, and I simply don't see that--there is too much inertia in hardwired human beh
FC-77 is intended for computer use, not FC-73 (my friend's father works at 3M)
> "Or, they could mate with the guy who will leave (he likely is the alpha and clearly superior), then sleep with a lesser man, get pregnant, and pass off the child as the beta's. That way, everyone wins (except the beta)."
I actually remember studies about this. Good stuff. It's why I forced myself to overcome my betaness.
The Anonymous Coward that replied already crushed your attempt at a comeback, but I'll add my 2 c as well:
> "Yeah, because that works so well."
Many alpha males I see can actually pull it off very well.
> "We could just as easily speculate that the probability of the child surviving drops 100 fold or 1000 fold, if the 'family unit' is just mother + child. Depends entirely on the culture and environment."
These numbers are ludicrous, and you clearly are unable to make a common sense order-of-magnitude estimate. But EVEN if it were 100-fold, it's still less effort for an alpha male to get 100 women in a year's time than help support a pregnant woman and then her and a child. And it has nothing to do with culture; we're talking about ancient hunter-gatherer societies (though modern day alpha males are at least as "productive"; I know several that do dozens of women every year).
> "Only from the males perspective."
That's sufficient for my argument.
> "The women, on the other side, would see a fourfold increase in the chances of their offspring not making it, and unlike the male, they have no way to balance it back out. So why would they choose to mate with the male who leaves them?"
Now pay attention here. It's actually very simple, and has been discussed in books such as Sperm Wars (written by a biologist, don't get confused by the title): the male's alpha genes would result in her male children having similar behavior as him, and thus spread not only his genes but hers as well.
> "And as for the whole 'stoning' thing... assuming that there is roughly a 50/50 male female distribution, then at least 3 males have been denied the chance to reproduce by the dominant males strategy. So they get together, and decide their best strategy at reproducing is eliminating the dominant male. With 3 on 1 the pretty-boy is dead."
The AC already answered this nicely, and I'll add that obviously these "get-together's" don't work out because the alphas remain dominant to this day. Moreover, the term "pretty boy" is misleading, since while that helps, it's not a necessary component of being alpha. Alpha is much more about behavior, and is why if you get good enough at emulating a true alpha male, you actually start getting laid a lot more even if you're not pretty and not rich etc. This is the basic premise of much of the modern PUA movements, for example.
It's refreshing to see a sensible post like yours among all the bullshit responses I read on this article.
This is bone-headed thinking. The most likely implication is in fact that it is advantageous that at least a fraction of the population to be polygamous, but not all of it (too much competition--there can only be several alpha males in a group sort of thing).
> "Ideal mothers for your children would reject you knowing that you wouldn't provide for them?"
That's why you can fake attachment.
> "Low chance of offspring surviving... mothers would be unable to care for your children, and unable to find mates willing help them?"
I call bullshit. Let's say that the probability of a child surviving drops fourfold if the father does not remain in the relationship for a length for, say, beyond one year after birth. Note that then the father simply needs to impregnate at least four women instead of sticking around with one long-term in order to make up, genetically, for his absence during child-rearing. For more attractive men (better genetically), or more powerful ones (in old times, also translating to better genetically), impregnating at least four women as opposed to just one is far from a tall order.
> "Societal acceptance... e.g. The other men would stone him? Stone the women he cheated with? Stone his offspring?"
Silly, unfounded speculation.