You joke, but with all the hiccups of our visual system (why it should be the part of our minds resistant to cognitive biases, etc., considering how crazily widespread they are in other parts?)... it can be actually beneficial to strobe the image in some circumstances.
Good cinema stereoscopy uses polarization - no decrease in framerate. Generally, 48 (or 60, with Cameron) is a development I welcome with open hands... but it shouldn't do much for "3D" / stereoscopy. Framerate is not a problem of the method (heck, it has the same problems with static photos) which exploits just a small portion of the spatial hints we use; and those used are often not merely incomplete - but incorrect.
Most importantly, who would even wonder "do any of us believe that a dead character is really dead any more?" while... why, yes, it's pretty much THE only major common thing in surviving mythologies; so called "death" is just the beginning of new, glorious life, promise!
^At least for the variant in our cultural sphere; of course different for, say, Buddhism - BTW I'm constantly amazed how it manages to convey a very fundamental wisdom about our life, about civilization building on past deeds; to compel its followers into valuing that wisdom (from which we usually escape)... even if via a small trick, even if the essentially hoped for cessation of existence comes a bit sooner that after n-th reincarnation.
I guess South Korea / Seoul would suffer, too, at the least... BTW, exactly how familiar are you with NK propaganda?;p (and I'm not sure if described scenario / explanation example is that different from, say, the Reagan myth and the circumstances of the fall of SU;p )
Neither am I / it's something I care to dig into from time to time(*). Plus of course the whole taxonomic classification is kinda, well... fluid (heck, real biology essentially was established merely ~150 years ago, only after the taxonomies were largely already in place... started in times when we universally believed quite silly things about biological world (many people still can't snap out of it...), mostly just observed singular cases without them making much sense; small snippets without having the full perspective of connections between them, how they form an evolving system. Afterwards it all started to fall into place); many small points of contention are pretty much expected.:)
And I imagine Germans to have some unique focus on Neanderthals, considering one valley...;)
* the usual "exploring own origins", etc. (but then maybe I'm weird - too many people seem unable to resist "...including myths" part; even urban ones, like the "we're so important, gods love us, more of us live now than have ever lived!" BS lie & ignoring 100+ billion dead homo sapiens sapiens...at least we will be similarly ignored very quickly, so there's some "balance"... But hey, what to expect after a quick look at the list of human cognitive biases)
Stereoscopy is almost 2 times older than "'talking' movies"... it is, in fact, pretty much the only such thing reliably proving (few times already) to be a passing fad.
For instance "3D glasses" are showing you different left/right images, creating fake stereopsis...
A really "fake" one at that - as in, working in a "wrong" (not merely "incomplete") way: when the time comes to look at an object which is at a different depth (which is pretty inevitable - that's the point of "3D"), there's none of the "dance" of translucent scenery in front of and behind the momentary focus plane.
Also, in "2D" images and movies, a shallow focus can give a nice illusion of many effects... so it's also partly #1 and #3 (this shallow focus often resulting in a kind of translucence of objects); definitely #4, in some shots.
Actually, inspired by how one preschool-theater costume (of a...cat; with proper ears) supposedly induced a panic attack in the kitten of my buddy, I essentially reworked the dragon once, to be more "danger! Possible unknown big cat!"-like. Yup, panic attack also in my cat.
(quick google search for the above wiki page even revealed one with a cat design... I can't vouch for how convincing it is, though)
Nope, "3D" in 3DS is just the old trick of stereoscopy (old: barely younger than "2D" photography... so largely ignored - with few "golden eras" - for quite a while now); the barrier which shows each eye a separate image is just in the screen - not in, say, glasses. Which... makes it useless with the discussed trick.
Something very similar showed up also on DSi. It generally feels almost as great as when you hold a "proper" hologram (unfortunately only static ones have good quality so far; for good holographic dynamic display we need pixels smaller than the wavelength of light + processing and memory we're nowhere near yet - but once there, a screen could be felt essentially like a window or mirror)
Stereoscopy feels very flat to me in comparison - yes, there's depth of course, but the usual very deep focus makes everything feel like few disconnected planes, kinda similar to many backgrounds in SNES platformers (most noticeable on many / most(?) Vievmaster photos; and a stereoscopic image with shallow focus brings even more issues; generally, I have an impression that stereoscopy bets on the wrong parts of depth perception: if you think about it, the parts it uses cannot be the primary hints for our brains, since they are the result of our eyes converging on a particular object & its depth... so the brain must have a good idea about depth beforehand)
We also constantly perceive parallax (hence we perhaps use it - at the least, I would be disappointed if our brains didn't evolve to use such handy info) - the "doubling" of objects which are not currently on the focus plane. The rates of it very dependent on the distance from focus plane (so I suspect it might be a more useful info than the parts on which "3D" / stereoscopy depends on - allowing the brain to feel the depth of some object before focusing on it is, to know how to "set" the eyes is... kinda useful; and it might be one of primary reasons why stereoscopy feels not quite right / is virtually ignored for over 150 years already)
I still see Archimedean hulls over there:p (easy, in a place formerly behind the Iron Curtain - quite a bit of Meteor or Voskhod hydrofoils around)
I say it very precisely, "ships' hulls"/etc., for a reason:p But congrats, you're only the second, I believe, out of at least two dozen people replying to such posts [1] / how hardly anybody realizes the existence of hydrofoils is another example of ultimately limited (just liking to tell itself how "broad" it is) imagination (hydrofoils which don't change much of course, their properties resulting in limited use, and how their essence is quite "ancient" - dynamic suspension above the equilibrium by moving surfaces is how a lot of "biological" swimming happens. Also, we can probably agree that small bike-like hydrofoils without hulls, often muscle-powered, are a joke;) )
1. Generally, posts dispelling tendencies to mix fiction and wishful thinking with reality, most often when... related to space activities, as above. This picture is useful too (airplanes from "our" times, no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech 100+ years ago [2] - and we can even build them: take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... doesn't make it a good idea), vs. "boring" reality (yes, typically this picture;p It's not only a nice shot; also the most widely used passenger airliner, the airline (as far as my part of the woods goes), and one of few profitable ones)
2. One can wonder how strong was this effect in giving us the Shuttle - after all, scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s (times of rapid advances in airplane technology / I can see a pattern...) was full of "spaceplanes". Shuttle designers and decisionmakers grew up on those works of fiction before they gave us... an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst); something which, again, looked very soothing to public already quite accustomed to airliners / Concorde. And which probably robbed as at least of a decade of progress; was obsolete (with automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s) before it seriously got onto drawing boards.
Of course, then it would be only decent to also calculate & show different risks of cancer from cosmic radiation (hence expected average differences of available time), or unhealthy effects of low oxygen levels;P (but yeah, IIRC the differences from going up&down the gravity well are quite on par with those from human-scale speeds of movement)
The effect stems from relative differences in speed of object in question vs. chosen frame of reference, it essentially (*) doesn't matter "in which direction you spin" or other scifi mumbo-jumbo ( * it sort of might when you take into account how the space itself is being dragged by rotating object, particularly a massive and compact one)
It doesn't matter much how the time in your frame of reference relates to times of "stationary" observers; it's still the same amount of time for you.
Of course, the gain (and much larger than nanoseconds) might be there vs. just sitting on your rear end. But it depends greatly on the type of movement, for example whether it involves regular exercise.
Biology is something we can check reasonably well, reasonably soon. Yes, too bad the centrifuge module for ISS was shelved... but OTOH there seems to be some newfound rush towards the Moon - I wish one of the landers would include, say, a small colony of laboratory mice, with monitoring equipment. Or maybe even return capsule, to return them after few generations (too bad cats would be too big... but imagine... [dramatic music]space cats!!![/dramatic music])
Also you have some dated info, we know very well that crops can grow in low gravity... heck, some Soviet experiments suggest that even ~month long day&night cycle on the Moon wouldn't be too much of an issue. Also, we already perform deep hibernation of humans (very conveniently for space travel: in miniaturized state), and on a mass scale - at least few dozen thousands living humans are past the procedure, IIRC.
And generally - "fast" means of space travel would barely make any kind of difference vs. "slow" ones (such as asteroid and comet hopping - around a trillion comets just in our cloud... and eventually, after a few thousand years, some groups would hitch a ride with a cloud of passing star); both offer very rapid colonization of the galaxy, in geological timescale.
Ultimately, you can bet future won't be as imagined in works of popular fiction - because you must remember that's what scifi is. Grandiose, fabulous, "awesome" style of exploration depicted in those - that's catering to audiences which would be uncomfortable with anything too dissimilar from Earthy experiences; and coincidentally making the work of writers helluva easier. A sign of... limited imagination (how many people remember that we can already transport people while miniaturized and in deep hibernation? Heck, give me one medium launcher + additional few dozen million bucks, and I can transport at least a thousand living / viable humans to pretty much anywhere in our system), afraid to face what the wild realities of existing universe.
And ultimately, people will remain upset how space travel will most likely remain different from earthly experiences
BTW, how is that building of ships' hulls ignoring Archimedes' principle going along? It's over 2k years old, surely we should be able to ignore it by now, eh?
Or it doesn't stop from voters making bad choices... while misled by and INDIVIDUAL influence (or from a focused group - but remember, a lot of "decent average folks" are more than happy when given an opportunity to themselves get a slice of the pie - it's only "fair" then - so it's not about "us" vs "them")
Generally, "the constitution outlined a system of checks and balances" and the overall mythology surrounding "the Founding Fathers" baffles me... those were still works (far from perfect, here and there by design) of just humans. Nothing other humans can't get around relatively quickly, if it doesn't suit them.
The point which again ignores how the "evidence" (both kinds) is sketchy, at best. Especially when it comes to "pay the penalty" myth, which you buy & value because you are bombarded by influences to do so - not because it makes sense as something good; influences which say that's all there is to it, no need to even bother about the links outlining how you worship the ultimate sinner and damager, Demiurge if anything. Your messiah is a wolf in sheep skin - "do unquestionably what I say or suffer eternally" + "my life, my fairly unremarkable - not anywhere near the worst - death are enough to balance out the sins and lives of 100+ billion dead homo sapiens sapiens... sins which I caused with full foreknowledge by my flawed creation as omniscient and omnipotent" - that is what he says as a whole. Certainly worthy of Demiurge (NVM what could it even matter to a god of the universe (THE universe, not some crazily constrained horizon of random desert people) where said "sacrifice" takes place... pushing the idea that he was a deity means pushing also that it's a drama spectactle at worst, a stage play)
I believe in morality, which is doing right regardless of what I am told... not in religion, which is doing what you're told regardless of what is right or makes sense. NVM how your mythology makes just as much sense as any other (Aztek or Chinese being just two examples obviously - and you certainly don't know even the tip of the iceberg of semitic mythologies and gods, nobody does by now; saying "I may have missed something with classical Greek one" is just showing lack of awareness of how many myths & religions are extinct and forgotten - as yours will be quite soon, too), and each of their followers is just as convinced that theirs has the "best answers" - coincidentally, virtually all believers simply remain with the one which was poured into them in youth (yes, there are exceptions - so few as to be irrelevant noise; if religions were measured by those people, all would be pretty much instantly functionally extinct)
Fixation on guilt & blame generally didn't bring much good, watch "White Ribbon" for a start...
And again, ancient Hebrew is not a language of New Testament or of core involved people... but I guess you're set already on what to believe.
Moreover, was Wozniak a good teacher / were his methods effective? (I assume he did try to bring something new to the table, at the school where he taught)
That's what we should look at, not "he's a tech visionary and great engineer, and he also taught at school, so he knows what he's talking about when it comes to education" - should be easy to determine, too, considering his classes were 2+ decades ago.
Slashdot Mirror
Bigger audience? ;p 48 will play at 50 quite nicely.
You joke, but with all the hiccups of our visual system (why it should be the part of our minds resistant to cognitive biases, etc., considering how crazily widespread they are in other parts?)... it can be actually beneficial to strobe the image in some circumstances.
Good cinema stereoscopy uses polarization - no decrease in framerate. Generally, 48 (or 60, with Cameron) is a development I welcome with open hands... but it shouldn't do much for "3D" / stereoscopy. Framerate is not a problem of the method (heck, it has the same problems with static photos) which exploits just a small portion of the spatial hints we use; and those used are often not merely incomplete - but incorrect.
Most importantly, who would even wonder "do any of us believe that a dead character is really dead any more?" while... why, yes, it's pretty much THE only major common thing in surviving mythologies; so called "death" is just the beginning of new, glorious life, promise!
^At least for the variant in our cultural sphere; of course different for, say, Buddhism - BTW I'm constantly amazed how it manages to convey a very fundamental wisdom about our life, about civilization building on past deeds; to compel its followers into valuing that wisdom (from which we usually escape)... even if via a small trick, even if the essentially hoped for cessation of existence comes a bit sooner that after n-th reincarnation.
I guess South Korea / Seoul would suffer, too, at the least... BTW, exactly how familiar are you with NK propaganda? ;p (and I'm not sure if described scenario / explanation example is that different from, say, the Reagan myth and the circumstances of the fall of SU ;p )
Neither am I / it's something I care to dig into from time to time(*). Plus of course the whole taxonomic classification is kinda, well... fluid (heck, real biology essentially was established merely ~150 years ago, only after the taxonomies were largely already in place... started in times when we universally believed quite silly things about biological world (many people still can't snap out of it...), mostly just observed singular cases without them making much sense; small snippets without having the full perspective of connections between them, how they form an evolving system. Afterwards it all started to fall into place); many small points of contention are pretty much expected. :)
;)
...at least we will be similarly ignored very quickly, so there's some "balance"... But hey, what to expect after a quick look at the list of human cognitive biases)
And I imagine Germans to have some unique focus on Neanderthals, considering one valley...
* the usual "exploring own origins", etc. (but then maybe I'm weird - too many people seem unable to resist "...including myths" part; even urban ones, like the "we're so important, gods love us, more of us live now than have ever lived!" BS lie & ignoring 100+ billion dead homo sapiens sapiens
And stereoscopy ignores fuzziness by using deep focus... (or, again, when it doesn't - it brings even more troubles, very conflicting stimuli)
Innovation of using just the camera, you say?
Stereoscopy is almost 2 times older than "'talking' movies"... it is, in fact, pretty much the only such thing reliably proving (few times already) to be a passing fad.
For instance "3D glasses" are showing you different left/right images, creating fake stereopsis...
A really "fake" one at that - as in, working in a "wrong" (not merely "incomplete") way: when the time comes to look at an object which is at a different depth (which is pretty inevitable - that's the point of "3D"), there's none of the "dance" of translucent scenery in front of and behind the momentary focus plane.
Also, in "2D" images and movies, a shallow focus can give a nice illusion of many effects... so it's also partly #1 and #3 (this shallow focus often resulting in a kind of translucence of objects); definitely #4, in some shots.
Simpler: hollow-face & three dragons
Actually, inspired by how one preschool-theater costume (of a...cat; with proper ears) supposedly induced a panic attack in the kitten of my buddy, I essentially reworked the dragon once, to be more "danger! Possible unknown big cat!"-like. Yup, panic attack also in my cat.
(quick google search for the above wiki page even revealed one with a cat design... I can't vouch for how convincing it is, though)
Nope, "3D" in 3DS is just the old trick of stereoscopy (old: barely younger than "2D" photography... so largely ignored - with few "golden eras" - for quite a while now); the barrier which shows each eye a separate image is just in the screen - not in, say, glasses. Which... makes it useless with the discussed trick.
Something very similar showed up also on DSi. It generally feels almost as great as when you hold a "proper" hologram (unfortunately only static ones have good quality so far; for good holographic dynamic display we need pixels smaller than the wavelength of light + processing and memory we're nowhere near yet - but once there, a screen could be felt essentially like a window or mirror)
Stereoscopy feels very flat to me in comparison - yes, there's depth of course, but the usual very deep focus makes everything feel like few disconnected planes, kinda similar to many backgrounds in SNES platformers (most noticeable on many / most(?) Vievmaster photos; and a stereoscopic image with shallow focus brings even more issues; generally, I have an impression that stereoscopy bets on the wrong parts of depth perception: if you think about it, the parts it uses cannot be the primary hints for our brains, since they are the result of our eyes converging on a particular object & its depth... so the brain must have a good idea about depth beforehand)
We also constantly perceive parallax (hence we perhaps use it - at the least, I would be disappointed if our brains didn't evolve to use such handy info) - the "doubling" of objects which are not currently on the focus plane. The rates of it very dependent on the distance from focus plane (so I suspect it might be a more useful info than the parts on which "3D" / stereoscopy depends on - allowing the brain to feel the depth of some object before focusing on it is, to know how to "set" the eyes is... kinda useful; and it might be one of primary reasons why stereoscopy feels not quite right / is virtually ignored for over 150 years already)
I still see Archimedean hulls over there :p (easy, in a place formerly behind the Iron Curtain - quite a bit of Meteor or Voskhod hydrofoils around)
:p But congrats, you're only the second, I believe, out of at least two dozen people replying to such posts [1] / how hardly anybody realizes the existence of hydrofoils is another example of ultimately limited (just liking to tell itself how "broad" it is) imagination (hydrofoils which don't change much of course, their properties resulting in limited use, and how their essence is quite "ancient" - dynamic suspension above the equilibrium by moving surfaces is how a lot of "biological" swimming happens. Also, we can probably agree that small bike-like hydrofoils without hulls, often muscle-powered, are a joke ;) )
;p It's not only a nice shot; also the most widely used passenger airliner, the airline (as far as my part of the woods goes), and one of few profitable ones)
I say it very precisely, "ships' hulls"/etc., for a reason
1. Generally, posts dispelling tendencies to mix fiction and wishful thinking with reality, most often when... related to space activities, as above. This picture is useful too (airplanes from "our" times, no doubt influenced by rapid advances in marine tech 100+ years ago [2] - and we can even build them: take a Harrier, remove wings and canopy... doesn't make it a good idea), vs. "boring" reality (yes, typically this picture
2. One can wonder how strong was this effect in giving us the Shuttle - after all, scifi from 30s, 40s and 50s (times of rapid advances in airplane technology / I can see a pattern...) was full of "spaceplanes". Shuttle designers and decisionmakers grew up on those works of fiction before they gave us... an analogue of Catalina, at best (Spruce Goose, at worst); something which, again, looked very soothing to public already quite accustomed to airliners / Concorde. And which probably robbed as at least of a decade of progress; was obsolete (with automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s) before it seriously got onto drawing boards.
Of course, then it would be only decent to also calculate & show different risks of cancer from cosmic radiation (hence expected average differences of available time), or unhealthy effects of low oxygen levels ;P (but yeah, IIRC the differences from going up&down the gravity well are quite on par with those from human-scale speeds of movement)
The effect stems from relative differences in speed of object in question vs. chosen frame of reference, it essentially (*) doesn't matter "in which direction you spin" or other scifi mumbo-jumbo ( * it sort of might when you take into account how the space itself is being dragged by rotating object, particularly a massive and compact one)
Time dilation is proven to you every time you use a friggin' GPS; a system which wouldn't work without taking the effect into account (also...)
It doesn't matter much how the time in your frame of reference relates to times of "stationary" observers; it's still the same amount of time for you.
Of course, the gain (and much larger than nanoseconds) might be there vs. just sitting on your rear end. But it depends greatly on the type of movement, for example whether it involves regular exercise.
Biology is something we can check reasonably well, reasonably soon. Yes, too bad the centrifuge module for ISS was shelved... but OTOH there seems to be some newfound rush towards the Moon - I wish one of the landers would include, say, a small colony of laboratory mice, with monitoring equipment. Or maybe even return capsule, to return them after few generations (too bad cats would be too big... but imagine... [dramatic music]space cats!!![/dramatic music])
Also you have some dated info, we know very well that crops can grow in low gravity... heck, some Soviet experiments suggest that even ~month long day&night cycle on the Moon wouldn't be too much of an issue. Also, we already perform deep hibernation of humans (very conveniently for space travel: in miniaturized state), and on a mass scale - at least few dozen thousands living humans are past the procedure, IIRC.
And generally - "fast" means of space travel would barely make any kind of difference vs. "slow" ones (such as asteroid and comet hopping - around a trillion comets just in our cloud... and eventually, after a few thousand years, some groups would hitch a ride with a cloud of passing star); both offer very rapid colonization of the galaxy, in geological timescale.
http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience/RelativityofWrong.htm
Ultimately, you can bet future won't be as imagined in works of popular fiction - because you must remember that's what scifi is. Grandiose, fabulous, "awesome" style of exploration depicted in those - that's catering to audiences which would be uncomfortable with anything too dissimilar from Earthy experiences; and coincidentally making the work of writers helluva easier. A sign of... limited imagination (how many people remember that we can already transport people while miniaturized and in deep hibernation? Heck, give me one medium launcher + additional few dozen million bucks, and I can transport at least a thousand living / viable humans to pretty much anywhere in our system), afraid to face what the wild realities of existing universe.
And ultimately, people will remain upset how space travel will most likely remain different from earthly experiences
BTW, how is that building of ships' hulls ignoring Archimedes' principle going along? It's over 2k years old, surely we should be able to ignore it by now, eh?
OTOH imagine how many people here would scream "bloody murder!" if, say, MS did the buyout...
Or it doesn't stop from voters making bad choices... while misled by and INDIVIDUAL influence (or from a focused group - but remember, a lot of "decent average folks" are more than happy when given an opportunity to themselves get a slice of the pie - it's only "fair" then - so it's not about "us" vs "them")
Generally, "the constitution outlined a system of checks and balances" and the overall mythology surrounding "the Founding Fathers" baffles me... those were still works (far from perfect, here and there by design) of just humans. Nothing other humans can't get around relatively quickly, if it doesn't suit them.
The point which again ignores how the "evidence" (both kinds) is sketchy, at best. Especially when it comes to "pay the penalty" myth, which you buy & value because you are bombarded by influences to do so - not because it makes sense as something good; influences which say that's all there is to it, no need to even bother about the links outlining how you worship the ultimate sinner and damager, Demiurge if anything. Your messiah is a wolf in sheep skin - "do unquestionably what I say or suffer eternally" + "my life, my fairly unremarkable - not anywhere near the worst - death are enough to balance out the sins and lives of 100+ billion dead homo sapiens sapiens ... sins which I caused with full foreknowledge by my flawed creation as omniscient and omnipotent" - that is what he says as a whole. Certainly worthy of Demiurge (NVM what could it even matter to a god of the universe (THE universe, not some crazily constrained horizon of random desert people) where said "sacrifice" takes place... pushing the idea that he was a deity means pushing also that it's a drama spectactle at worst, a stage play)
I believe in morality, which is doing right regardless of what I am told... not in religion, which is doing what you're told regardless of what is right or makes sense. NVM how your mythology makes just as much sense as any other (Aztek or Chinese being just two examples obviously - and you certainly don't know even the tip of the iceberg of semitic mythologies and gods, nobody does by now; saying "I may have missed something with classical Greek one" is just showing lack of awareness of how many myths & religions are extinct and forgotten - as yours will be quite soon, too), and each of their followers is just as convinced that theirs has the "best answers" - coincidentally, virtually all believers simply remain with the one which was poured into them in youth (yes, there are exceptions - so few as to be irrelevant noise; if religions were measured by those people, all would be pretty much instantly functionally extinct)
Fixation on guilt & blame generally didn't bring much good, watch "White Ribbon" for a start...
And again, ancient Hebrew is not a language of New Testament or of core involved people... but I guess you're set already on what to believe.
Moreover, was Wozniak a good teacher / were his methods effective? (I assume he did try to bring something new to the table, at the school where he taught)
That's what we should look at, not "he's a tech visionary and great engineer, and he also taught at school, so he knows what he's talking about when it comes to education" - should be easy to determine, too, considering his classes were 2+ decades ago.