What we know is that one (and apparently only one) doctor diagnosed her with a rare condition (that was diagnosed by the parents first, and they shopped docs until they found someone that would confirm it). And, when taken to a "real" hospital for an intestinal issue, the doctors there didn't confirm the diagnosis of the family doctor. When the diagnosis wasn't confirmed, the psychiatrists were called in, and think that the parents forced the diagnosis on the child to make her special.
So, if the one lone doctor is right, then the hospital is staffed with idiots. If the hospital is right and the lone doctor wrong, then it looks like actual abuse. So how would you like it handled?
Looked to me like a psychiatrist doesn't believe in the disease she was being treated for, and so considered the treatment abuse. The rest was the "natural result" of that. http://www.madinamerica.com/20...http://www.theblaze.com/storie... (just the first two links from my search, there are piles more)
Yes, how thoughtless of them to draw international attention to the kidnapping of a sick child. The real issue is that a network may have run slow, not the abuse of a child at the hands of the hospital, involuntarily committed for the benefit of the hospital.
No, the implication of "non profit" implies some charity motive. Most "non profits" these days are run as for-profits where the excess profits are not returned to the owners (that's illegal) but to the directors and executives (legal). Though, is it legal when two non-profits have the owners of one the directors of the other, and vice versa? They make profits, but pay them out to non-owners (legal).
Non-profit is an IRS "trick" to reduce expenses, and doesn't prevent making a profit, or paying out a profit, but prevents paying out a profit as dividends to the owners (and allows grant funding). That's about all.
But people still have the image of "non-profit" means nun-like charity.
A "load balancer" is a router. They just don't claim to be, because you can get a "router" from D-Link for $50, and they are charging $20,000 for the F5 load balancer.
DNS does direction.
Never mind. You've heard the words before, but don't know what they mean. DNS does "direction" like a yellow pages does "direction". Giving a physical address for a logical name isn't "direction". The "direction" is given by a router (including load balancers). Load balancers are just policy-based routers (or SDN routers, if you are around too many people that like new things they don't understand).
Load balancers are generally what goes down to a DDoS.
Not if you get the good ones. A Russian mobster tried to take down an Australian gambling site, and the F5s protecting it stayed up. In the end, the Internet for Australia went down before the load balancers for the site went down. Australia had to go upstream and get Singapore and others to put in filters to get the Internet for Australia back up.
So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?
Did you fail to take due care to look after your stuff? I think so, so yes, it's your fault. If you hadn't acted negligently, you wouldn't have lost your stuff.
And when your accountant is also an accountant to the mob, when he's arrested, you are out an accountant. The government should never have enforced those laws because it harmed others.
Or maybe there should be a move towards ethical hosting?
So now the government has to go through years of project management and cost overruns before finding out the contractor is incompetent. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Yes. That's better than the current situation. Just hold the contractors responsible. In China, defrauding the government for billions will get you shot. In the US, you get a no-bid contract and guaranteed profits for life.
It's sad when the Chinese government is so much more efficient than the US.
We need to update the 14th Amendment. It applied the Bill of Rights to the States, but not private citizens. You have the "right" to deprive your neighbor of his rights. Or, in the corporate states of america, you get to deprive your customers of rights. And you get to lie about it to your customers. Even the most libertarian would agree that the fraud should be actionable.
We need an Amendment to give rights to privacy. The problem is the corporate overlords have brainwashed the insane conservatives. "privacy" = baby murder. Or so I get told every time a privacy bill gets submitted in some state, and the anti-abortion activists come out to ensure the corporations can rape us with impunity. It's better that we have no rights, than a teen be able to make a decision about a fetus without her parents and ever male she's ever had sex with present.
Abortion and gun rights are the two major issues the government uses to ensure passing any law. Temporary blank checks like "for the children" and "terrorism" come and go, but abortion and gun rights stay forever.
And while we are at it, remove the references to gender in the Constitution, also in the 14th Amendment. The most bigoted part of the constitution, created to help end bigotry. Irony of ironies.
Would cars have ever become commonplace if the gasoline to power them cost 100-1000x what it cost when automobiles were invented?
Yes. The first "cars" weren't even gasoline powered. Wood and electric pre-dated the ICE. Cars were coming no matter what, just like cell phones pre-dated Li-ion batteries, They started with 12V car power required, then moved to a shitload of AA batteries, then to Ni-Cad, then to newer rechargables. The funding for battery research was pushed by cell phones, but cell phones would have become commonplace without rechargeable batteries of any kind. Cars would have become commonplace even if their engines didn't evolve to ICE.
If the cars themselves cost 10x as much?
They did. The first ones were very expensive. It wasn't until the Model T where there was such a focus on cost as to be able to sell them to the common man. The Model T started at 3x average annual wage, then came down to under a year's wage.
With something like Wikipedia, we could catch up pretty quickly. If we truely lost all computer storage/memory, we'd be to the pre-computer age. That's the 1950-1960 age. Not that bad. Outlaw electric for heat and light and entertainment (using it only for "necessary" things like refrigeration and production) and we could operate on replacing the fuel in coal plants with plant material generated sustainably. No need to apocalypse ourselves.
it was given authority to enforce anti-trust laws and to curb corporate "unfair trade practices". This is not a case of corporate unfair trade practices. This is a case of state laws.
One of the things that came out with the airbag lawsuits (no I don't remember all the court cases I read) is that if you do something that's required by law (put airbags in a car), that it's required by law doesn't absolve you of civil or criminal penalties for doing so. That the corporate abuses are required by law doesn't change the fact that the abuse is happening. There can be actions against the manufacturers for following the law, when the law is poor. They have the right to stop trading. But they don't have the right to abuse people with unfair trade practices.
By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.
Oooh, an actual case of someone "begging the question". It's so rare that it actually happens (compared with the people incorrectly using the phrase "begging the question). You are assuming that they do. I don't know CA law. I've visited, but never lived there. The feds restrict mail-order of firearms. CA regulates local sales/posession.
CA doesn't make it legal to buy it from an approved local dealer, then make it illegal to buy mail-order from an out-of-state dealer, do they? I would presume they make it illegal to buy, regardless of source. That's different from different treatment depending on the location of the seller.
But I don't read gun law of places I don't live for kicks, so I don't know. I just find you assertion logically inconsistent, so I doubt that's how it works. Thus I question the assumption that they do regulate firearms in the manner you imply.
But the manufacturers support dealer networks. It's a known evil, and it's a barrier to entry for others. The real issue with this is all the artificial barriers to entry for makers. There's a reason Renault, Citroen, Fiat, and piles of others pulled out of the US. The "customer protections" cost millions to comply with, regardless of how many cars you make (once you make more than a limited number, excepted because the one-offs can't ever compete with the Tauruses of the big makers. Now that all the US makers are gone (GM had to be nationalized to prevent its closure, and Ford makes and sells more cars outside the US than in), we should abolish all the laws around car making, and start again.
Raritan, Infoblox, and a bunch more. The only networking gear that the maker refuses to sell directly is Cisco. They require you go through a partner "for my protection". If I want an CRS-3 with a 100 Gbps card in it to run my DSL, Cisco will refuse to sell it to me because a $50 Linksys will do the job, rather than a $1,000,000 (fully populated estimated by me) optical switch. If I went to Raritan and requested a 240v 50Hz power supply, they'd sell it to me, even if grid power didn't match. Though APC will direct me to a reseler.
Manufacturers like resellers because it's a legal separation. The device worked right, but didn't work in the install? Sue the reseller, not the maker. But so many sell directly (though, I think in more than one case, I filled out the paperwork to become a reseller so I could buy some at the manufacturer price, but they were for direct use, not resale), so I became a reseller to buy it.
Not really a decent summary of the situation. The manufacturers long ago chose to use dealerships rather than direct sales channels. The dealership franchise laws came about *after* a number of situations where the manufacturers were seen to be abusing their relationships with their dealers.
It was a case of simple outsourcing. The manufacturers were manufacturers, not salesmen. So they outsourced sales. Then lobbied for laws requiring outsourcing of sales. Now, the sales arms are rent-seekers. They wanted the laws against manufacturers precicely for this reason. If they build in 20% markup for the dealers, then a direct sale can be 20% under the dealer's "best price" for the same item. So require, by law, that everyone must use the inefficient and shady dealer network, and you are harming your competitors in an anti-competitive manner, for the benefit of your profit model.
The silver lining is that the feds seem to understand that this is a bad thing, and that the state laws restricting interstate trade likely wouldn't hold up in court, so we can get change to rid ourselves of this rent-seeking middle man that adds no value. These days, when I want a car, I usually have done all the research so that I don't need to (or want to) talk to a human. I want to identify a car, get the "best price" for it, and decide to execute the transaction, or walk away (like I do buying a candy bay at the supermarket). A 20% markup so I can deal with some rent-seeking 3rd party isn't a benefit.
Until they invent something that lets me reach through the Internet and slap an idiot, it's the best I can do. That and I hate the lazy and stupid who can't even form a complete sentence in response to something they "feel" is wrong. "Citation needed" indeed.
Technology can't be set back XXX years. What, there's the anachronism police that will render all firearm cartridges inert? What magic do you plan on that will do that? We won't forget that germs exist, just because the power grid fails. Technologies won't be lost because a technology discovered at a similar point in time was "lost".
You also presume every adult is killed simultaneously, but few children are lost.
Maybe diagrams of simple machines as well - screws, levers, gears, pulleys, water filters, treadle pumps, magnifying lenses, rocket stoves, etc. The sort of devices that are mostly easy to build and obviously useful, and will free up leisure time for a person just barely scraping by who can then focus more energy on further development.
Yes, because being "set back' 200 years will make us forget things first documented by the Greeks (yes, in writing, not hard drives). https://www.google.co.nz/url?s... There are print outs of the workings of Lever, Wheel and axle, Pulley, Inclined plane, Wedge, and the Screw around, most of those simple machines documented since the Greeks, with them formally described as the "basic" machines since about 500 years ago (and currently taught in schools starting at age 6, so make sure your "reset" wipes out the adults, or at least their minds). So I'm not sure how your magical 200 year reset would eliminate those. Not to mention the millions of people that know the list, and could teach them to the children.
Mechanical engines have been around for thousands of years. They just looked different when it was a water wheel or ox providing the force, as opposed to fire (whether IC or steam-powered).
At best a 2000 year reset would land us in steampunk land. Where we know what the future "should" look like, but lack some of the metallurgy and machinework skills to build it yet, and have to settle for ballloons instead of airplanes, and steam-powered everything.
Even computers are only ~50 years old. Tell us what your "reset" is. Terrorists getting a hold of 100+ nukes (all with ICBM launchers), and they detonate enough nukes in low orbit to EMP everything on the ground and in space? We'd be back to the 1960s or so. And we'd get to keep everything we know about everything, so long as someone knows it and passes it along. There is no conceivable way to "set us back 200 years" Cartridged firearms and DNA are orthoginal, and there's no way to forget one in a manner that requires forgetting the other. Your "event" would have to wipe the minds of everyone. If that happened, what would we care how the result would look, The person we are today would be dead, even if the body continued breathing. Even something that killed adults wouldn't work. My children have drawn DNA and know about genetics and evolution, and they know it before school age, but if you killed off everyone over 4 to prevent the transmission of that knowledge, the remaining children would have trouble surviving to adulthood.
So your premise is so absurd that any conclusion drawn from it must necessarily be no less absurd.
I don't remember the case off the top of my head, but the courts have ruled that if the feds have constitutional jurisdiction, then the states and localities don't. Even if there's no federal law that they are in conflict with. So the lack of a federal law on the subject of car dealers doesn't mean that the states suddenly have the power to regulate interstate commerce, if they want to.
6) Paralax can be consistently observed in real 3D display scene when you move and change your point of view, whereas the stereoscopic display lure the brain that there would be paralax effect if you move but, when you try to do so, it doesn't happen, you can't make a close object actualy translate faster than a distant one, and you won't see what's behind neither - not more that the other eye was already seeing.
See #2.
The observer is not the display device. The fact that my eyes don't see the same image when I'm looking at an object doesn't mean that this object is stereoscopic. This isn't a property of the object.
You are using a more strict definition of stereoscopy than required. Feeding two different and coordinated images to the eyes is stereopsis. There is no qualification I see that the images must be 2D, or from separate sources. A single hologram (Real 3D) results in two separate images (as seen by the eyes of a viewer), and thus is stereopsis. If you have seen a "reliable" definition that disagrees, please point me to it. I've never seen any that would exclude it from stereopsis/stereoscopy.
Slashdot Mirror
She's losing her hair and refusing to walk because of all the stress from the DDoS.
What we know is that one (and apparently only one) doctor diagnosed her with a rare condition (that was diagnosed by the parents first, and they shopped docs until they found someone that would confirm it). And, when taken to a "real" hospital for an intestinal issue, the doctors there didn't confirm the diagnosis of the family doctor. When the diagnosis wasn't confirmed, the psychiatrists were called in, and think that the parents forced the diagnosis on the child to make her special.
So, if the one lone doctor is right, then the hospital is staffed with idiots. If the hospital is right and the lone doctor wrong, then it looks like actual abuse. So how would you like it handled?
Looked to me like a psychiatrist doesn't believe in the disease she was being treated for, and so considered the treatment abuse. The rest was the "natural result" of that. http://www.madinamerica.com/20... http://www.theblaze.com/storie... (just the first two links from my search, there are piles more)
I don't want to help the parents. The child is the person who should be helped, not the parents.
Yes, how thoughtless of them to draw international attention to the kidnapping of a sick child. The real issue is that a network may have run slow, not the abuse of a child at the hands of the hospital, involuntarily committed for the benefit of the hospital.
No, the implication of "non profit" implies some charity motive. Most "non profits" these days are run as for-profits where the excess profits are not returned to the owners (that's illegal) but to the directors and executives (legal). Though, is it legal when two non-profits have the owners of one the directors of the other, and vice versa? They make profits, but pay them out to non-owners (legal).
Non-profit is an IRS "trick" to reduce expenses, and doesn't prevent making a profit, or paying out a profit, but prevents paying out a profit as dividends to the owners (and allows grant funding). That's about all.
But people still have the image of "non-profit" means nun-like charity.
DNS does direction.
Never mind. You've heard the words before, but don't know what they mean. DNS does "direction" like a yellow pages does "direction". Giving a physical address for a logical name isn't "direction". The "direction" is given by a router (including load balancers). Load balancers are just policy-based routers (or SDN routers, if you are around too many people that like new things they don't understand).
Load balancers are generally what goes down to a DDoS.
Not if you get the good ones. A Russian mobster tried to take down an Australian gambling site, and the F5s protecting it stayed up. In the end, the Internet for Australia went down before the load balancers for the site went down. Australia had to go upstream and get Singapore and others to put in filters to get the Internet for Australia back up.
The only victim here is Justina. Justina is not being blamed. So no, that's not what is going on here.
So then you're agreeing if I leave my door unlocked at night and someone comes in and steals something, it's my fault because the asshat thought it was okay to steal?
Did you fail to take due care to look after your stuff? I think so, so yes, it's your fault. If you hadn't acted negligently, you wouldn't have lost your stuff.
And when your accountant is also an accountant to the mob, when he's arrested, you are out an accountant. The government should never have enforced those laws because it harmed others.
Or maybe there should be a move towards ethical hosting?
Why all the hate? Is it just jealousy? I honestly don't understand why so many hate people they've never seen.
So now the government has to go through years of project management and cost overruns before finding out the contractor is incompetent. Lather. Rinse. Repeat.
Yes. That's better than the current situation. Just hold the contractors responsible. In China, defrauding the government for billions will get you shot. In the US, you get a no-bid contract and guaranteed profits for life.
It's sad when the Chinese government is so much more efficient than the US.
We need to update the 14th Amendment. It applied the Bill of Rights to the States, but not private citizens. You have the "right" to deprive your neighbor of his rights. Or, in the corporate states of america, you get to deprive your customers of rights. And you get to lie about it to your customers. Even the most libertarian would agree that the fraud should be actionable.
We need an Amendment to give rights to privacy. The problem is the corporate overlords have brainwashed the insane conservatives. "privacy" = baby murder. Or so I get told every time a privacy bill gets submitted in some state, and the anti-abortion activists come out to ensure the corporations can rape us with impunity. It's better that we have no rights, than a teen be able to make a decision about a fetus without her parents and ever male she's ever had sex with present.
Abortion and gun rights are the two major issues the government uses to ensure passing any law. Temporary blank checks like "for the children" and "terrorism" come and go, but abortion and gun rights stay forever.
And while we are at it, remove the references to gender in the Constitution, also in the 14th Amendment. The most bigoted part of the constitution, created to help end bigotry. Irony of ironies.
Would cars have ever become commonplace if the gasoline to power them cost 100-1000x what it cost when automobiles were invented?
Yes. The first "cars" weren't even gasoline powered. Wood and electric pre-dated the ICE. Cars were coming no matter what, just like cell phones pre-dated Li-ion batteries, They started with 12V car power required, then moved to a shitload of AA batteries, then to Ni-Cad, then to newer rechargables. The funding for battery research was pushed by cell phones, but cell phones would have become commonplace without rechargeable batteries of any kind. Cars would have become commonplace even if their engines didn't evolve to ICE.
If the cars themselves cost 10x as much?
They did. The first ones were very expensive. It wasn't until the Model T where there was such a focus on cost as to be able to sell them to the common man. The Model T started at 3x average annual wage, then came down to under a year's wage.
With something like Wikipedia, we could catch up pretty quickly. If we truely lost all computer storage/memory, we'd be to the pre-computer age. That's the 1950-1960 age. Not that bad. Outlaw electric for heat and light and entertainment (using it only for "necessary" things like refrigeration and production) and we could operate on replacing the fuel in coal plants with plant material generated sustainably. No need to apocalypse ourselves.
it was given authority to enforce anti-trust laws and to curb corporate "unfair trade practices". This is not a case of corporate unfair trade practices. This is a case of state laws.
One of the things that came out with the airbag lawsuits (no I don't remember all the court cases I read) is that if you do something that's required by law (put airbags in a car), that it's required by law doesn't absolve you of civil or criminal penalties for doing so. That the corporate abuses are required by law doesn't change the fact that the abuse is happening. There can be actions against the manufacturers for following the law, when the law is poor. They have the right to stop trading. But they don't have the right to abuse people with unfair trade practices.
Congress has passed no laws regarding this, the FTC has no authority to intervene.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F... Congress has passed a law allowing the FTC to intervene on Congress's authority.
Separation of Church and state. The State required a religious observation when they added it, thus invalidated the previously "legal" pledge.
By that logic, California shouldn't have the right to restrict a citizen from purchasing a firearm made in another state.
Oooh, an actual case of someone "begging the question". It's so rare that it actually happens (compared with the people incorrectly using the phrase "begging the question). You are assuming that they do. I don't know CA law. I've visited, but never lived there. The feds restrict mail-order of firearms. CA regulates local sales/posession.
CA doesn't make it legal to buy it from an approved local dealer, then make it illegal to buy mail-order from an out-of-state dealer, do they? I would presume they make it illegal to buy, regardless of source. That's different from different treatment depending on the location of the seller.
But I don't read gun law of places I don't live for kicks, so I don't know. I just find you assertion logically inconsistent, so I doubt that's how it works. Thus I question the assumption that they do regulate firearms in the manner you imply.
hurts manufacturers
But the manufacturers support dealer networks. It's a known evil, and it's a barrier to entry for others. The real issue with this is all the artificial barriers to entry for makers. There's a reason Renault, Citroen, Fiat, and piles of others pulled out of the US. The "customer protections" cost millions to comply with, regardless of how many cars you make (once you make more than a limited number, excepted because the one-offs can't ever compete with the Tauruses of the big makers. Now that all the US makers are gone (GM had to be nationalized to prevent its closure, and Ford makes and sells more cars outside the US than in), we should abolish all the laws around car making, and start again.
Raritan, Infoblox, and a bunch more. The only networking gear that the maker refuses to sell directly is Cisco. They require you go through a partner "for my protection". If I want an CRS-3 with a 100 Gbps card in it to run my DSL, Cisco will refuse to sell it to me because a $50 Linksys will do the job, rather than a $1,000,000 (fully populated estimated by me) optical switch. If I went to Raritan and requested a 240v 50Hz power supply, they'd sell it to me, even if grid power didn't match. Though APC will direct me to a reseler.
Manufacturers like resellers because it's a legal separation. The device worked right, but didn't work in the install? Sue the reseller, not the maker. But so many sell directly (though, I think in more than one case, I filled out the paperwork to become a reseller so I could buy some at the manufacturer price, but they were for direct use, not resale), so I became a reseller to buy it.
Not really a decent summary of the situation. The manufacturers long ago chose to use dealerships rather than direct sales channels. The dealership franchise laws came about *after* a number of situations where the manufacturers were seen to be abusing their relationships with their dealers.
It was a case of simple outsourcing. The manufacturers were manufacturers, not salesmen. So they outsourced sales. Then lobbied for laws requiring outsourcing of sales. Now, the sales arms are rent-seekers. They wanted the laws against manufacturers precicely for this reason. If they build in 20% markup for the dealers, then a direct sale can be 20% under the dealer's "best price" for the same item. So require, by law, that everyone must use the inefficient and shady dealer network, and you are harming your competitors in an anti-competitive manner, for the benefit of your profit model.
The silver lining is that the feds seem to understand that this is a bad thing, and that the state laws restricting interstate trade likely wouldn't hold up in court, so we can get change to rid ourselves of this rent-seeking middle man that adds no value. These days, when I want a car, I usually have done all the research so that I don't need to (or want to) talk to a human. I want to identify a car, get the "best price" for it, and decide to execute the transaction, or walk away (like I do buying a candy bay at the supermarket). A 20% markup so I can deal with some rent-seeking 3rd party isn't a benefit.
Until they invent something that lets me reach through the Internet and slap an idiot, it's the best I can do. That and I hate the lazy and stupid who can't even form a complete sentence in response to something they "feel" is wrong. "Citation needed" indeed.
You also presume every adult is killed simultaneously, but few children are lost.
Maybe diagrams of simple machines as well - screws, levers, gears, pulleys, water filters, treadle pumps, magnifying lenses, rocket stoves, etc. The sort of devices that are mostly easy to build and obviously useful, and will free up leisure time for a person just barely scraping by who can then focus more energy on further development.
Yes, because being "set back' 200 years will make us forget things first documented by the Greeks (yes, in writing, not hard drives). https://www.google.co.nz/url?s... There are print outs of the workings of Lever, Wheel and axle, Pulley, Inclined plane, Wedge, and the Screw around, most of those simple machines documented since the Greeks, with them formally described as the "basic" machines since about 500 years ago (and currently taught in schools starting at age 6, so make sure your "reset" wipes out the adults, or at least their minds). So I'm not sure how your magical 200 year reset would eliminate those. Not to mention the millions of people that know the list, and could teach them to the children.
Mechanical engines have been around for thousands of years. They just looked different when it was a water wheel or ox providing the force, as opposed to fire (whether IC or steam-powered).
At best a 2000 year reset would land us in steampunk land. Where we know what the future "should" look like, but lack some of the metallurgy and machinework skills to build it yet, and have to settle for ballloons instead of airplanes, and steam-powered everything.
Even computers are only ~50 years old. Tell us what your "reset" is. Terrorists getting a hold of 100+ nukes (all with ICBM launchers), and they detonate enough nukes in low orbit to EMP everything on the ground and in space? We'd be back to the 1960s or so. And we'd get to keep everything we know about everything, so long as someone knows it and passes it along. There is no conceivable way to "set us back 200 years" Cartridged firearms and DNA are orthoginal, and there's no way to forget one in a manner that requires forgetting the other. Your "event" would have to wipe the minds of everyone. If that happened, what would we care how the result would look, The person we are today would be dead, even if the body continued breathing. Even something that killed adults wouldn't work. My children have drawn DNA and know about genetics and evolution, and they know it before school age, but if you killed off everyone over 4 to prevent the transmission of that knowledge, the remaining children would have trouble surviving to adulthood.
So your premise is so absurd that any conclusion drawn from it must necessarily be no less absurd.
I don't remember the case off the top of my head, but the courts have ruled that if the feds have constitutional jurisdiction, then the states and localities don't. Even if there's no federal law that they are in conflict with. So the lack of a federal law on the subject of car dealers doesn't mean that the states suddenly have the power to regulate interstate commerce, if they want to.
6) Paralax can be consistently observed in real 3D display scene when you move and change your point of view, whereas the stereoscopic display lure the brain that there would be paralax effect if you move but, when you try to do so, it doesn't happen, you can't make a close object actualy translate faster than a distant one, and you won't see what's behind neither - not more that the other eye was already seeing.
See #2.
The observer is not the display device. The fact that my eyes don't see the same image when I'm looking at an object doesn't mean that this object is stereoscopic. This isn't a property of the object.
You are using a more strict definition of stereoscopy than required. Feeding two different and coordinated images to the eyes is stereopsis. There is no qualification I see that the images must be 2D, or from separate sources. A single hologram (Real 3D) results in two separate images (as seen by the eyes of a viewer), and thus is stereopsis. If you have seen a "reliable" definition that disagrees, please point me to it. I've never seen any that would exclude it from stereopsis/stereoscopy.