Also - nvm how driving drunk is not exactly "law abiding" - being killed or losing somebody, all in the name of some drunk who wanted to have a ride, is a much, much greater invasion of privacy.
I wouldn't - stereoscopy has very wrong parallax (vs. it just not being there in "2D" images; but shallow focus possibly nicely tapping into how we're used to all the blurs and doubling of objects in front and behind of focus place... ), forces eyes to maintain focus lock on the screen while convergence and spatial hints scream otherwise, for all the objects to be viewable the scene needs to have very deep focus (as is typical in this stereoscopic toy with ~dozen photos on a disk - which IMHO makes the scene, paradoxically, very flat - a feel somewhat similar to SNES platformers with several backgrounds), and you would need to keep your head mostly horizontal.
In contrast, holography can give rays of light basically just like they would be when coming from real scene. Anyone who held a "proper" hologram knows how phenomenal it might eventually be - you hold a flat photograph, but it appears like insides of a box with a real object inside!
(that said, changing view via cameras or accelerometers can be fun - there is a NDSi game like that (funnily enough, the method can't be used on the stereoscopic screen of Nintendo 3DS)... but it's not the same league)
(and generally - through how many more golden eras of "3D"/stereoscopy we need to go? The one half a century ago even had polarizing glasses, too. Heck, the stereoscopic version of photography is barely younger than its "normal" sister, at ~150 years; quite easy and inexpensive to do for a long time. Did you make even one such photograph? Know anybody who did? Do you recollect any of the "great / cherished / monumental / eye-catching" photographs helping itself with stereoscopy in the impact they have on us?)
Oh, I can easily imagine how we are indeed largely predisposed to various forms of spirituality, et al (*) - but of course with individual differences determined by our DNA being irrelevant to nonexistent (hence no point in talking about god gene)
(*) Starting possibly from a kind of oversensitive alertness (false positives, essentially - acting on them to a certain degree probably also aided in survival) coupled with heightened sense of self (hence recognizing it in other individuals... and generalizing it a bit too far) - this and further steps of our spirituality almost certainly proved adaptive, it's all that matters in the end. And, even if determined by DNA - had many, many thousands of years (plus population bottlenecks) to be evenly intermixed in genomes of practically all humans.
While plays and concerts and live performances generally certainly try to work with the audience, not against it (which would be the case in allowing large part of the scene to be obscured for certain unfortunate part of the audience), it's IMHO not very precise to describe their efforts as "doing their best to simulate 2D" - experiencing an actually real 3D scene (not some visually wrong stereoscopic trickery, like in current wave of cinema "3D") is a large part of the experience, of being there
One which good holographic screen could reproduce, feeling essentially like a window.
(plus you know, while completely surrounding the scene is very rare, classic amphitheater-like arrangements aren't unheard of...)
Yes and no? "Hologram" has quite specific meaning; plus its not only eerily great to hold one (photo), the experience might translate fabulously to cinema, one day (considering how a good holographic screen would feel essentially like a window)
"Star Wars" (and lots of scifi) doesn't have holograms. Those are volumetric displays. Interesting in their own right to be sure, but probably much more limited in utility (just look how they are envisioned - videoconference-like or showing what is also in setting an infographic CGI)
There's really no need (and way) to see behind objects with a holographic display in the form of quite typical screen - when it works more like a window (granted, Kinect certainly poorly registers sides of objects, that just makes it less than "half-3D")
Early mechanical systems are probably a better analogy. Once we committed ourselves to electronic television, it was basically immediately quite good (heck, British 405-line system was promoted as High Definition; there are some recordings on YT, looking decently good)
What those people are doing is certainly "real holography" (not captured too well, the cameraman should move more)
It's just that obstacles are huge (to the point of being quite counterintuitive) - apparently, for a really good holography, you need a display with pixels smaller than a wavelength of light (coupled with memory and processing we're nowhere near yet)
But once we're there... oh boy. A display can look basically like a window. Much better than the gimmick of stereoscopy.
Why would you even bother yourself with the controversy? (which only can introduce confusion, looks almost like searching for it and why the initial post looks like...) People pushing it certainly don't bother about specific hypotheses, models, mechanisms; what can be currently described as most encompassing theory of evolution doesn't matter, past versions don't matter (much...) - teachers from TFA or fundamentalists are uncomfortable with the basic idea of evolution, of natural changes. They don't like undermining their ancient answer to the question "who is in charge of the Earth?" (same thing is really at the core of AGW issue, BTW)
With the amount of evidence we have (IMHO also very approachable, quite intuitive, etc.) you need nowadays a leap of faith to discard it.
(and what Dawkins has to do with anything here? Now it really might look like it's about something different...)
1. Assuming perfect lack of any previous air movements in the cabin (while in reality, fans are constantly buzzing). Ask some of the Mir crew how "fun" it was to have a fire... (a small one, on-board a very spacious vehicle)
Technically, there was no fuel tank explosion; what looked like one was mostly just burning of fuel (and general "cloud") dumped from severally compromised structure of fuel tank, behind it. The disintegration was the works of near max Q aerodynamic forces acting on destabilized stack.
(also, probably not everybody were alive; not all emergency oxygen supplies were used)
The Shuttle wasn't retired, despite already fulfilling its only attainable practical goal (provoking ignorant Soviet generals into pushing for their counterpart, on the basis of fairytale notion that STS gave any "strategic advantage"; greatly contributing to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union(*))
It was allowed to suck NASA dry for over two more decades (and with another hiccup in the middle); they didn't even learn it was a high time for replacement.
(*)But then, while the Soviet Union had the decency to recognize such outcome and dissolve itself quite peacefully... the US, while not far behind, went on a spending frenzy.
Some time ago there were hints & speculations that Samsung bada mobile OS might use some Enlightenment libraries. Considering how future Samsung Star-like handsets might shift to bada from "feature phone" flavor of Touchwiz UI (it's already quite close), how primarily such handsets represent recent touchscreen boom (except for very few atypical but highly visible and vocal places) - millions of people might perhaps carry at all times part of Enlightenment with them quite soon...
Are you serious? Are you really sure about those "many years learing about evolutionary theory. It seems quite intuitive to me"? That you have the hang of its absolute basics, foundations?
Do you really experience lack of intuitive and quite easy to understand evidence for: "species come and go, fossil record (lately also genetics) and living ones show 'families' & descent, more adapted seems to survive and breed better"? Especially now, especially when it comes to _teaching_ (well, assuming no cultural dogmas against it), with our thorough contact with the outside world (knowledge of it, generally), when we are on average not so contained whole lives to the reality of local and quite homogeneous communities, when we can _experience_ many environments which are quite different from our home one (with their accompanying species...)
Our shifting ideas about mechanisms, our new models deal with things like specifics of speciation, how it happens, what are the most crucial elements influencing it (just for one example). There is no real contention about the basic idea of evolution (what is itself attacked by fundamentalists), so much so that it basically can be treated as common-language "fact"
Honestly, now your first post starts to look like "concern troll" false flag deal.
Really, read about it some more; that's the position of final reports. The failure of SRB caused mostly its partial _detachment_ - one which compromised the stability of whole stack and allowed the SRB to _mechanically_ wreck havoc around it (further leading to structural failure of _rear_bulkhead_ of fuel tank / its contents being rapidly dumped / what only further destabilized the stack)
Heat doesn't cause things to explode automatically; not when the thing in question is a non_mixed_with_oxidizer hydrogen. OTOH - the disaster happened almost exactly at max Q moment.
Just because they were on "our" side? Plus a nice holiday destination, surely it can't be that bad in such case... (while, ironically enough, when looking at the area a bit further to the East - it's not too hard to consider Iran as more progressive than most of our allies in that particular region)
Most of the posters seem to use "blew up", which is vague enough... but not you / "explosion" isn't!;) (what looked like one was actually mostly burning of dumped fuel _behind_ the disintegrating stack - which was being shred to pieces mostly via aerodynamic forces)
Jokes, black humor is one of our coping mechanisms. A custodian of a museum in Nazi transit-camp / death camp, with whom I had contact, understood this; didn't seem to mind it and actually _almost_ participated.
(too bad the "had exploded" was being reinforced almost immediately; what looked like an explosion, was actually mostly burning of dumped fuel _behind_ the Shuttle - which was disintegrated mostly via aerodynamic forces)
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget to mention: 80+% of drivers think they are in the top half (also: "anybody faster than me is a moron; anybody driving faster - a maniac")
Just one of standard "concerns", I imagine...
Also - nvm how driving drunk is not exactly "law abiding" - being killed or losing somebody, all in the name of some drunk who wanted to have a ride, is a much, much greater invasion of privacy.
Oh right, distribution of high quality video ... maybe some forces in the UK want to have fabulous backbone for many more CCTV cameras?
Cat...in the tube? O_o
I wouldn't - stereoscopy has very wrong parallax (vs. it just not being there in "2D" images; but shallow focus possibly nicely tapping into how we're used to all the blurs and doubling of objects in front and behind of focus place... ), forces eyes to maintain focus lock on the screen while convergence and spatial hints scream otherwise, for all the objects to be viewable the scene needs to have very deep focus (as is typical in this stereoscopic toy with ~dozen photos on a disk - which IMHO makes the scene, paradoxically, very flat - a feel somewhat similar to SNES platformers with several backgrounds), and you would need to keep your head mostly horizontal.
... but it's not the same league)
In contrast, holography can give rays of light basically just like they would be when coming from real scene. Anyone who held a "proper" hologram knows how phenomenal it might eventually be - you hold a flat photograph, but it appears like insides of a box with a real object inside!
(that said, changing view via cameras or accelerometers can be fun - there is a NDSi game like that (funnily enough, the method can't be used on the stereoscopic screen of Nintendo 3DS)
(and generally - through how many more golden eras of "3D"/stereoscopy we need to go? The one half a century ago even had polarizing glasses, too. Heck, the stereoscopic version of photography is barely younger than its "normal" sister, at ~150 years; quite easy and inexpensive to do for a long time. Did you make even one such photograph? Know anybody who did? Do you recollect any of the "great / cherished / monumental / eye-catching" photographs helping itself with stereoscopy in the impact they have on us?)
Oh, I can easily imagine how we are indeed largely predisposed to various forms of spirituality, et al (*) - but of course with individual differences determined by our DNA being irrelevant to nonexistent (hence no point in talking about god gene)
... and generalizing it a bit too far) - this and further steps of our spirituality almost certainly proved adaptive, it's all that matters in the end. And, even if determined by DNA - had many, many thousands of years (plus population bottlenecks) to be evenly intermixed in genomes of practically all humans.
(*) Starting possibly from a kind of oversensitive alertness (false positives, essentially - acting on them to a certain degree probably also aided in survival) coupled with heightened sense of self (hence recognizing it in other individuals
...However, not everyone has a THX-certified viewing/listening environment....
Also, a good holographic screen will be probably damn expensive for some time.
While plays and concerts and live performances generally certainly try to work with the audience, not against it (which would be the case in allowing large part of the scene to be obscured for certain unfortunate part of the audience), it's IMHO not very precise to describe their efforts as "doing their best to simulate 2D" - experiencing an actually real 3D scene (not some visually wrong stereoscopic trickery, like in current wave of cinema "3D") is a large part of the experience, of being there
One which good holographic screen could reproduce, feeling essentially like a window.
(plus you know, while completely surrounding the scene is very rare, classic amphitheater-like arrangements aren't unheard of...)
(why oh why does my place (& language) use for "television" what is a direct linguistic transfer of EN "televisor"?...)
Yes and no? "Hologram" has quite specific meaning; plus its not only eerily great to hold one (photo), the experience might translate fabulously to cinema, one day (considering how a good holographic screen would feel essentially like a window)
"Star Wars" (and lots of scifi) doesn't have holograms. Those are volumetric displays. Interesting in their own right to be sure, but probably much more limited in utility (just look how they are envisioned - videoconference-like or showing what is also in setting an infographic CGI)
There's really no need (and way) to see behind objects with a holographic display in the form of quite typical screen - when it works more like a window (granted, Kinect certainly poorly registers sides of objects, that just makes it less than "half-3D")
Early mechanical systems are probably a better analogy. Once we committed ourselves to electronic television, it was basically immediately quite good (heck, British 405-line system was promoted as High Definition; there are some recordings on YT, looking decently good)
What those people are doing is certainly "real holography" (not captured too well, the cameraman should move more)
It's just that obstacles are huge (to the point of being quite counterintuitive) - apparently, for a really good holography, you need a display with pixels smaller than a wavelength of light (coupled with memory and processing we're nowhere near yet)
But once we're there... oh boy. A display can look basically like a window. Much better than the gimmick of stereoscopy.
(some quick details)
Why would you even bother yourself with the controversy? (which only can introduce confusion, looks almost like searching for it and why the initial post looks like...) People pushing it certainly don't bother about specific hypotheses, models, mechanisms; what can be currently described as most encompassing theory of evolution doesn't matter, past versions don't matter (much...) - teachers from TFA or fundamentalists are uncomfortable with the basic idea of evolution, of natural changes. They don't like undermining their ancient answer to the question "who is in charge of the Earth?" (same thing is really at the core of AGW issue, BTW)
With the amount of evidence we have (IMHO also very approachable, quite intuitive, etc.) you need nowadays a leap of faith to discard it.
(and what Dawkins has to do with anything here? Now it really might look like it's about something different...)
1. Assuming perfect lack of any previous air movements in the cabin (while in reality, fans are constantly buzzing). Ask some of the Mir crew how "fun" it was to have a fire... (a small one, on-board a very spacious vehicle)
Technically, there was no fuel tank explosion; what looked like one was mostly just burning of fuel (and general "cloud") dumped from severally compromised structure of fuel tank, behind it. The disintegration was the works of near max Q aerodynamic forces acting on destabilized stack.
(also, probably not everybody were alive; not all emergency oxygen supplies were used)
Now imagine what those women look like inside / crossover pics!
The Shuttle wasn't retired, despite already fulfilling its only attainable practical goal (provoking ignorant Soviet generals into pushing for their counterpart, on the basis of fairytale notion that STS gave any "strategic advantage"; greatly contributing to the bankruptcy of the Soviet Union(*))
It was allowed to suck NASA dry for over two more decades (and with another hiccup in the middle); they didn't even learn it was a high time for replacement.
(*)But then, while the Soviet Union had the decency to recognize such outcome and dissolve itself quite peacefully... the US, while not far behind, went on a spending frenzy.
...and if only one could be moderately certain "the human face" greeting you, at the end of the wait, will be in any way a pleasant sight.
Some time ago there were hints & speculations that Samsung bada mobile OS might use some Enlightenment libraries. Considering how future Samsung Star-like handsets might shift to bada from "feature phone" flavor of Touchwiz UI (it's already quite close), how primarily such handsets represent recent touchscreen boom (except for very few atypical but highly visible and vocal places) - millions of people might perhaps carry at all times part of Enlightenment with them quite soon...
Are you serious? Are you really sure about those "many years learing about evolutionary theory. It seems quite intuitive to me"? That you have the hang of its absolute basics, foundations?
Do you really experience lack of intuitive and quite easy to understand evidence for: "species come and go, fossil record (lately also genetics) and living ones show 'families' & descent, more adapted seems to survive and breed better"? Especially now, especially when it comes to _teaching_ (well, assuming no cultural dogmas against it), with our thorough contact with the outside world (knowledge of it, generally), when we are on average not so contained whole lives to the reality of local and quite homogeneous communities, when we can _experience_ many environments which are quite different from our home one (with their accompanying species...)
Our shifting ideas about mechanisms, our new models deal with things like specifics of speciation, how it happens, what are the most crucial elements influencing it (just for one example). There is no real contention about the basic idea of evolution (what is itself attacked by fundamentalists), so much so that it basically can be treated as common-language "fact"
Honestly, now your first post starts to look like "concern troll" false flag deal.
Really, read about it some more; that's the position of final reports. The failure of SRB caused mostly its partial _detachment_ - one which compromised the stability of whole stack and allowed the SRB to _mechanically_ wreck havoc around it (further leading to structural failure of _rear_bulkhead_ of fuel tank / its contents being rapidly dumped / what only further destabilized the stack)
Heat doesn't cause things to explode automatically; not when the thing in question is a non_mixed_with_oxidizer hydrogen. OTOH - the disaster happened almost exactly at max Q moment.
Just because they were on "our" side? Plus a nice holiday destination, surely it can't be that bad in such case... (while, ironically enough, when looking at the area a bit further to the East - it's not too hard to consider Iran as more progressive than most of our allies in that particular region)
Most of the posters seem to use "blew up", which is vague enough... but not you / "explosion" isn't! ;) (what looked like one was actually mostly burning of dumped fuel _behind_ the disintegrating stack - which was being shred to pieces mostly via aerodynamic forces)
Jokes, black humor is one of our coping mechanisms. A custodian of a museum in Nazi transit-camp / death camp, with whom I had contact, understood this; didn't seem to mind it and actually _almost_ participated.
(too bad the "had exploded" was being reinforced almost immediately; what looked like an explosion, was actually mostly burning of dumped fuel _behind_ the Shuttle - which was disintegrated mostly via aerodynamic forces)