Few people do. Now there are many people who like to do things that happen to destroy their own bodies (e.g. smoking). But they are not doing it in order to destroy their bodies, but despite it destroying their bodies, and if there were an alternative which would give them the same experience without destroying their bodies, they'd readily switch to it.
Why do people even consider suicide, considering what is "after" it?
Because those people consider the expected future life worse than what they expect after death.
Well, that alone would not be a problem, because in both cases we only get the light which hits our eyes. If the light from the real object and from the movie object were exactly the same, than for our eyes it would be as if the object were where it appears to be, and everything is OK. However, in reality, it isn't like that. Each single eye image already contains a depth information due to the divergence of light rays (the ray approximation is still good here). This depth information matters because it determines how the lens in your eye has to be focused to get a sharp image. For 3D movies, this "focal depth" still is the distance of the screen.
On the other hand, the binocular vision allows to extract depth information from the displacements between the left-eye and the right-eye image. This is what our 3D perception comes from, and this is what the 3D movies use. So the "binocular depth" is wherever the object appears to be in the 3D movie.
Now in the real world, "focal depth" and "binocular depth" are the same. Therefore they are normally coupled in your vision system (focusing at an object at different distance means both moving the eyes so that the displacement is zero for the desired distance, and changing the eyes' lenses so that images from that distance are sharp). This link breaks for 3D movies (you still have to move your eyes, but you don't have to re-focus the lens).
The world outside is fully 3D, and the article just said that 3D is harmful for children. We should protect the children from this dangerous 3D world outside.:-)
Well, I can imagine that if another company did release a headset, and was successful with it, then Sega might actually have published those results. If only because they would have to justify not producing it to the shareholders.
Well, the "3D" displays don't really give a 3D image (holographic displays would, but that's a technology we don't have (yet?)). They just give enough of 3D effects to let our brain reconstruct the 3D. However the eye has still to focus on the 2D screen, or you get blurred vision (this indeed is the reason why I have problems with the "crossed-view" magic eye pictures: I simply cannot get my eyes in a position corresponding to a near object, and at the same time focus my lens to the actual image). If you have seen "A Christmas Carol" in 3D, you might have seen one scene where the more distant background was blurred. This looks quite natural for 2D images, because after all, it's the effect of focusing on the near scene. However, at least for me it was somewhat disturbing in the 3D movie, because there one intuitively expects to be able to focus on the distant part and then get a sharp image. So yes, there are differences between real 3D and current technology fake 3D, and those are in a way that you can experience them. Now whether those differences can cause harm is a different question, however at least for children where the vision system is still developing it sounds at least plausible.
Actually, the lens has to focus on the distance of the physical screen, or you don't get a sharp image. The relative orientation of the eyes, however, will correspond to the apparent position of the 3D object shown.
So if you have this eye decease, you get prescribed to play 3D video games? Maybe 3D video games are actually healthy for your eyes! Can I get my health insurance to pay for 3D equipment and the corresponding games, for prophylactic reasons?:-)
That's also a form of encryption: The decompression algorithm is the key. It's just that many people use widely available keys, and moreover indicate the used key in the file name.
Your comparison to quantum computing is dead wrong. Quantum computers are not currently known to be useful for brute forcing any algorithm.
That's not completely true: The decryption could be considered a database lookup where "decrypts" is "in the data base" and "doesn't decrypt" means "not in the data base". Now the Grover search algorithm can search a data base in O(sqrt(N)) instead of O(N). Now that's not an exponential speedup like for factorization, and is easily countered by simply doubling the key length, but it means that quantum computers are not completely useless for brute force.
OTOH, are you sure that there's no clever quantum algorithm which can break AES without using brute force?
Well, they just have to use a true quantum random process to generate the key, and trigger a doomsday device if the key doesn't work. According to quantum suicide they'll then have the key. If the theory is wrong, they probably won't have the key, but it won't matter any more anyway.:-)
Well, there are many people who don't consider them boring (of course it also depends on the individual game). And usually a game just is 90 minutes. Have you ever watched a tennis match? That's long and boring!
The goal nets are too small.
Really? Also I suspect it's not really a separate argument, but only some way to state the following argument:
They don't score enough points (prolly due to the net's small size).
Why should they score more points? The more points you score, the faster it gets boring, because soon it's more or less clear which team will win. If there are few points the game is generally open until close to the end.
The transitions are obvious.
I don't understand this point.
The players are wimps.
I disagree. But even if that were the case, that would be no argument against the game but only against the players.
The refs are blind.
Not all of them. But again, that's a problem of the refs, not of the game.
The fans riot violently; often causing mass destruction.
Some fans riot. And then, that's just coincidence. If there were no football, they'd choose any other reason to riot (maybe another sport, maybe something completely different). It's definitively not the game's fault.
To which another pedant would note that if it was intended to be 10Pi%, then the last digit was incorrectly rounded because 10Pi is larger than 31.41592653589793235.
Thousands of pages? Actually one sentence would suffice: "In public data communication networks, it is not allowed to prioritize or drop packets based on source and/or destination information." OK, maybe an exception should be made for addresses reserved for loopback and private networks.
It makes more sense to you because you are used to it. For me it makes more sense to have an "n-illion" to be "a million to the power of n" than for it to be "a thousand to the power of n plus one".
You've been simulated to die in our ongoing war with Eastasia, please report to the gassing chambers promptly to prevent the simulation from experiencing temporal improbabilities.
I guess whoever moderated that comment informative is now searching the gassing chamber to report himself...:-)
Slashdot Mirror
Few people do. Now there are many people who like to do things that happen to destroy their own bodies (e.g. smoking). But they are not doing it in order to destroy their bodies, but despite it destroying their bodies, and if there were an alternative which would give them the same experience without destroying their bodies, they'd readily switch to it.
Because those people consider the expected future life worse than what they expect after death.
Well, that alone would not be a problem, because in both cases we only get the light which hits our eyes. If the light from the real object and from the movie object were exactly the same, than for our eyes it would be as if the object were where it appears to be, and everything is OK. However, in reality, it isn't like that. Each single eye image already contains a depth information due to the divergence of light rays (the ray approximation is still good here). This depth information matters because it determines how the lens in your eye has to be focused to get a sharp image. For 3D movies, this "focal depth" still is the distance of the screen.
On the other hand, the binocular vision allows to extract depth information from the displacements between the left-eye and the right-eye image. This is what our 3D perception comes from, and this is what the 3D movies use. So the "binocular depth" is wherever the object appears to be in the 3D movie.
Now in the real world, "focal depth" and "binocular depth" are the same. Therefore they are normally coupled in your vision system (focusing at an object at different distance means both moving the eyes so that the displacement is zero for the desired distance, and changing the eyes' lenses so that images from that distance are sharp). This link breaks for 3D movies (you still have to move your eyes, but you don't have to re-focus the lens).
The world outside is fully 3D, and the article just said that 3D is harmful for children. We should protect the children from this dangerous 3D world outside. :-)
While they are generally rather flat, they are still clearly 3D. I admit that CRTs are more easily seen to be 3D, though.
SCNR :-)
Why do some people think that punishment has to be physical?
Well, I can imagine that if another company did release a headset, and was successful with it, then Sega might actually have published those results. If only because they would have to justify not producing it to the shareholders.
Well, the "3D" displays don't really give a 3D image (holographic displays would, but that's a technology we don't have (yet?)). They just give enough of 3D effects to let our brain reconstruct the 3D. However the eye has still to focus on the 2D screen, or you get blurred vision (this indeed is the reason why I have problems with the "crossed-view" magic eye pictures: I simply cannot get my eyes in a position corresponding to a near object, and at the same time focus my lens to the actual image). If you have seen "A Christmas Carol" in 3D, you might have seen one scene where the more distant background was blurred. This looks quite natural for 2D images, because after all, it's the effect of focusing on the near scene. However, at least for me it was somewhat disturbing in the 3D movie, because there one intuitively expects to be able to focus on the distant part and then get a sharp image. So yes, there are differences between real 3D and current technology fake 3D, and those are in a way that you can experience them. Now whether those differences can cause harm is a different question, however at least for children where the vision system is still developing it sounds at least plausible.
Actually, the lens has to focus on the distance of the physical screen, or you don't get a sharp image. The relative orientation of the eyes, however, will correspond to the apparent position of the 3D object shown.
So if you have this eye decease, you get prescribed to play 3D video games? Maybe 3D video games are actually healthy for your eyes! :-)
Can I get my health insurance to pay for 3D equipment and the corresponding games, for prophylactic reasons?
That's also a form of encryption: The decompression algorithm is the key. It's just that many people use widely available keys, and moreover indicate the used key in the file name.
Well, there's the chance that you are lying, and actually do know the password.
That's not completely true: The decryption could be considered a database lookup where "decrypts" is "in the data base" and "doesn't decrypt" means "not in the data base". Now the Grover search algorithm can search a data base in O(sqrt(N)) instead of O(N). Now that's not an exponential speedup like for factorization, and is easily countered by simply doubling the key length, but it means that quantum computers are not completely useless for brute force.
OTOH, are you sure that there's no clever quantum algorithm which can break AES without using brute force?
Well, they just have to use a true quantum random process to generate the key, and trigger a doomsday device if the key doesn't work. According to quantum suicide they'll then have the key. If the theory is wrong, they probably won't have the key, but it won't matter any more anyway. :-)
Well, even a Portuguese dictionary would not have helped. You don't find "1234" in a dictionary.
But it would look silly if an android held the iPhone to my ear while I was making a phone call. :-)
Well, there are many people who don't consider them boring (of course it also depends on the individual game). And usually a game just is 90 minutes.
Have you ever watched a tennis match? That's long and boring!
Really? Also I suspect it's not really a separate argument, but only some way to state the following argument:
Why should they score more points? The more points you score, the faster it gets boring, because soon it's more or less clear which team will win. If there are few points the game is generally open until close to the end.
I don't understand this point.
I disagree. But even if that were the case, that would be no argument against the game but only against the players.
Not all of them. But again, that's a problem of the refs, not of the game.
Some fans riot. And then, that's just coincidence. If there were no football, they'd choose any other reason to riot (maybe another sport, maybe something completely different). It's definitively not the game's fault.
Again, nothing about the game itself.
To which another pedant would note that if it was intended to be 10Pi%, then the last digit was incorrectly rounded because 10Pi is larger than 31.41592653589793235.
They have a bill about fucking? And they explain the term "cyber attack" there?
Well, if they had detonated an atomic bomb in New York at 9/11, the terrorists certainly wouldn't have managed to fly into the WTC.
Thousands of pages? Actually one sentence would suffice:
"In public data communication networks, it is not allowed to prioritize or drop packets based on source and/or destination information."
OK, maybe an exception should be made for addresses reserved for loopback and private networks.
Well, just remove all the connectors and use only WLAN and Bluetooth. :-)
It makes more sense to you because you are used to it.
For me it makes more sense to have an "n-illion" to be "a million to the power of n" than for it to be "a thousand to the power of n plus one".
In Soviet Russia, a Beowulf cluster of these imagines you.
Well, it shouldn't be too hard for then to add a few programs they already know will never work ... :-)
You've been simulated to die in our ongoing war with Eastasia, please report to the gassing chambers promptly to prevent the simulation from experiencing temporal improbabilities.
I guess whoever moderated that comment informative is now searching the gassing chamber to report himself ... :-)