Humans, alas, don't change as fast as Technology
on
Guilty By Association
·
· Score: 1
The proper solution, I think, is to change our culture, so that it doesn't matter that someone knows the kinks in my soul
While not disagreeing with this in a truly theoretical sense, the human being is far less tractable in real life. And the human being in a group is truly a throwback to a darker, more primeval time.
Humans have not changed markedly in the last 3,000 years or so of written history. There's nothing to suggest we're about to have a sudden burst of emotional evolution as a species, or even of emotional maturity in individuals.
And so that tends to suggest that adaptations to the new technologies will have to be either built into that new technology, or societies, cultures, groups, and individuals will just have to wear the effectively random consequences of the new pressures on them.
Plura faciunt homines e consuetidine, quam e ratione.
Man does more from habit than from reason.
-- Horace
Everyone in a country with country-wide citizen identification numbers, such as America (social security number) and Australia (tax file number), should be aware that these can and are used to link much of your life already. In Australia's case, all the various government, semi-government, and quango databases are resynched on tax file number once a year, and the result is available to various government agencies.
This occurs despite explicit promises to the electorate when the tax file number was introduced, that it would NEVER be used for this sort of purpose.
Add to this the ability to track online activity by merging on:
IP number
Cookie
embedded user-id in files (e.g. Microsoft's GID in every single MSOffice file)
Credit Card number
, etc. etc.
"Privacy" guarantees are torn down at the merest suggestion of higher purposes, and data is then freely shared. This can have excellent results: attacking paedophile rings. But it can also have wider, less salubrious results, when blind application of some new hysteria and a couple of incidental "hits" on the database scan sucks innocents into a nightmare.
Disk is cheap too. A startling amount of on-line activity is routinely recorded. The very first internet sourced "crack" can still be viewed, keystroke for keystroke...
In a world where paediatricians have been attacked by mobs and hospitalised following newspaper campaigns against paedophiles, where 20 year olds are exposed in "underage drinking scandals", where unfair or incorrect criminal convictions occur, where a data-entry glitch can destroy an innocent person's credit record with no timely hope of appeal against suddenly foreclosed mortgage, where a country parson on holiday is interred as a terrorist suspect based on rigorous computer screening, where political correctness is a moving feast and the witch hunt du jour dominates reasoned thought: it's perhaps a good idea to keep as much off the computer as possible, let alone the wider internet.
With AOL Buddy Lists, Yahoo Messenger, Friendster, and other mappable relationship environments, is it possible the information will soon be used against you?
Of course not! There's absolutely nothing to worry about. That's why I'm happy to participate on the interweb using my real name instead of an anonymous nom de clavier.
The linked articles aren't clear. Does anyone know if this case dealt purely with special FCC powers, or was it decided on Sherman anti-trust grounds?
If it was on Sherman anti-trust grounds, I can see why it went this way. The courts are very reluctant to apply such a devastating remedy, and tend to read down any application.
Interestingly/counter-intuitively, American regulators have effectively NO useful anti-monopoly or anti-abuse-of-market-position powers. Sherman Act gives only the financial equivalent of the nuclear bomb. Below that, there's essentially nothing: no system of graded fines or automatic restraint/requirement orders, no ability to remove company officers or investigate pricing, nothing.
The courts and regulators could do with a few more blackjacks, shillelaghs, and baseball bats, with some pointed sticks thrown in for more serious cases.
Then you'd be less likely to see such extremes of legal position. The regulators/courts could adopt middle grounds more reasonable to all parties.
>Wow, it's really great to see a spectator who appreciates our sport. Sadly, merely looking up to someone does not magically transfer their knowledge into your skull. [...] You need to get out more. I suggest college as a worthwhile destination.
This HAS to be a troll, surely. Apart from the pointless abuse, the attitude is asinine. It's almost a parody of the problem the above poster said he'd observed-- "you criticise my mad skills? FAH! Observe my PIECE OF PAPER, fool."
For the record, I have 3 degrees and don't choose to sneer at people who "merely" know more than I do about something by virtue of actually having done it.
The Saturnians have taken notice that this vessel is on a trajectory to permanently enter their planetary system [...] If the spacecraft does not alter its course soon, [...]
Or maybe if the spokes aren't visible, it's because someone nicked the Saturnians' bike.
This could also explain the posited incoherence:- rage-choked fist-waving Saturnian hordes milling backwards and forwards under the constant swirling clouds, roaring "Give us back our blurry bike!" at the intruder spacecraft above desperately trying to signal its non-hostile intentions by firing its Attitude Jets.
"<cough><blurt><cough><rrrRRRR!> Dude! In your face! Take your job and shove it up your"
Yes! They're firing! The spacecraft is saved!
The "spokes" are odd disruptions in the rings caused by Saturn's magnetic field rotating through them. They show up as dark patches radiating directly away from Saturn or occasionally arching, and they travel like a wave around Saturn in time with its rotation. It was this timing/speed that tipped astronomers off as to what was causing them, incidentally.
So if the spokes aren't visible now, maybe Saturn's magnetic field is fluctuating/less coherent than normal. It's a gas giant so its field could be less stable than the denser planets. There may be some low-level eg mid-atmosphere storm disrupting the normal field-generating circulations.
other way round, actually.
the human's proportion of surface area to volume is much much higher than a space ship. as you make objects larger, the surface area tends to increase in square proportion, the volume in cubic proportion. so the ratio of surface-area to volume decreases as things get bigger. cats freeze quicker than humans, humans freeze quicker than elephants (not least 'cos they're buggers to get into the fridge).
i could be a smartarse at this point, and point out that the spaceship, being comprised primarily of metal in its solid state, is in fact already frozen. but i won't.
I read in the papers last year one of the South Korean MMOGs had an actual war, with thousands on either side fighting coordinated battles, complete with military hierarchies, to achieve solely in-game-decided game-relevant game-objectives.
I don't understand. Surely they could have found a real person on the internet who had a fetish about being strapped to the outside of a rocket and shot into space? Their results would be guaranteed to be realistic that way: actual bone surrounded by actual organs and actual skin.
Legally, as long as they didn't eat him they should be all right.
Yeah, I've always thought this too. And it's mostly right -- you certainly will never see that cringe-worthy bad-sci-fi staple of liquids "freezing and boiling at the same time."
But interestingly, I discovered just last week if you take a spaceship out of direct sunshine, it starts to lose heat pretty substantially. One of the first space stations (I forget which) had its heatshield buggered up by over-early deployment and it started to overheat dramatically. An astronaut pushed an umbrella arrangement out an airlock to provide cover from the sun, and the temperature "immediately began to drop" (ok, a little obvious) and was within the expected range within a day. I saw this on "The Planets" TV show which was excellently researched, so I'd assume this was pretty valid.
In summary, radiation of heat seems to still provide a pretty good cooling mechanism in space, despite being much slower than conduction.
So while you'll be relieved to know you'll asphyxiate in comfort and warmth, you'll eventually become a corpsicle if you stay out of the sun(light).
:) There's a world of difference between "practical" and "competitive", or even "identical." And no, they are not gradations on a scale.
Re the 3D image aspects, yes, these are a function of the parallax barrier approach's intrinsic limitations.
A key killer, tho, for the sharp display is their lack of coherent marketing. Everyone should know about it. Only some technologists do.
well, like I posted below in response to another chap's rather vitriolic post which has now disappeared (bring it back! it was funny!):
"
A graphic novel is a comic book[...]go ahead and fool yourselves...keep thinking that you're reading some kind of great literary work
I believe the name "graphic novel" was introduced less to bamboozle morons into believing they're suddenly rubbing shoulders with Thackeray and Rand, and more to avoid the sort of blinkered knee-jerk reaction some people seem to get when they see pictures and words together.
A story expressed in simple text is not intrinsically superior to one expressed in another medium.
A painting is not automatically better than a sculpture because it has fewer dimensions. Mime is not automatically better than theatre because it has no words. A modern movie is not necessarily worse than a silent movie because it provides actual voices instead of relying on the audience's imagination.
The key distinction between a simple novel and a movie or a comic or a theatrical production is that the director/artist-author/director has the opportunity to present HIS view, HIS visualisation, rather than relying on the loosely-coupled hopefully-consonant imagination of the reader.
As is obvious from your own words:
It was almost like creating a movie in your head - you got to determine what the characters and their environments looked like and how the action took place
; you pretty much understand this yourself, you are just letting some odd internal reaction to the phrase "comic book" blind you to what the medium can offer.
Some examples of alternate narrative media, in case your imagination fails you:
Much of the Goon Show's humour was delightful audio tricks which can not be translated to TV or text where it relies on building up the listener's expectations of a scene then revealing something quite different. ("Oi'm the anti-climax.") Mime and ballet are narratives which use NO text at all, and have been around rather longer than the novel as an artform. Theatre uses wildly exaggerated makeup and expressions and voice-volumes to express the director's intent through the "mask" of bright lights and long distance. Movies convey a powerful sense of scene, but are very poor at conveying characters' motivations and thoughts directly, being forced to do so only indirectly through word and deed. Pictures have been used to express narratives and stories for quite some time. Cavemen sketched hunts, kingdoms sketched battles, religions sketched key events, such as the christian church's "twelve stations of the cross" displayed prominently in most churches.
In this context, a comic/graphic novel most closely parallels the movie as a narrative medium.
A graphic novel is a comic book[...]go ahead and fool yourselves...keep thinking that you're reading some kind of great literary work
I believe the name "graphic novel" was introduced less to bamboozle morons into believing they're suddenly rubbing shoulders with Thackeray and Rand, and more to avoid the sort of blinkered knee-jerk reaction some people seem to get when they see pictures and words together. No offence.
a comic book is a crutch for the unimaginative reader
It can be. So can a movie or a play.
It doesn't need to be. That's down to the particular movie/comic/play. And down to the particular watcher/reader/audience member too.
I don't need to be bound by one person's view of what the world of the "novel" should look like...I have my own mind and want to make my own choices.
Then comics are not for you. Neither are movies, theatre, or TV.
My recommendation: don't read or see them, save your time for stuff you personally enjoy. And maybe that will give you the time and mental breathing space to build sufficient perspective not to seek to belittle those whose tastes are broader or more variable or less rigidly dictated than your own.
Personally, I take each narrative medium on its merits. If I'm not in the mood for a movie, I don't go to the cinema. If I'm not in the mood for a book, I don't read one. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and therefore will tend to better reward some types of narrative (and mood) than others. Doesn't mean an
Can anyone confirm for me whether Alan Moore was Alec Trench in that great old 2000AD one-off in-joke?
Alec Trench was the "frustrated unappreciated writer" who--IIRC- it was QUITE a while ago (prog 100 or thereabouts?)-- attempted to leap to his death with his typewriter chained round his neck and then headed off to seek his fortune and reward for true worth in America, silhouetted against the horizon in the last panel, shaking his fist at the unappreciative ingrates he was leaving behind. Beardy, wild-haired...:)
I really hope it was-- it'd make it a delightful double in-joke-- he's proved he was right!
CRT...LCD front screen
I believe these guys plus some flavours (eg plasma) are still going. The issues preventing take-off remain the same: refresh rate.
the amount of data required for 3D TV (or 3D movies) for these kind of screens is immense. Whilst modern digital satellite TV can carry hundreds of channels from a single satellite the same satellite would only be able to carry a handful of 3D broadcasts (if you want to ensure a decent 3D picture). I think you'd probably need something faster than Internet 2 for cable-based transmission
Err, sorry, I don't mean to be rude here, but whoever gave you your information is very wrong. The additional data needs for 3D broadcast are very minor. The bandwidth capabilities of broadcast TV and cable TV are more than adequate to the task.
To understand why, you should look at how the various MPEGs (or TiVo) compress a moving picture. Essentially, the only full picture is the first, and thereafter each "frame" only stores the changes from the preceding frame.
So a simple way to make a TV broadcast 3D would be to broadcast one "eye" as the normal broadcast, and to add another stream which records only the changes to that eye's image to create the other eye's image. This approach prevents breaking existing TVs: ordinary TVs work normally off the unchanged transmission, while 3D TVs can have the extra in-TV intelligence to build the other eye's images.
Have a look at this overview and the 3DTV-specific comments and answers attached to it.
dunno about yer aussie chap, but 3D tv is i believe regularly broadcast in the usa. the issue is, how do you view it? i can only assume people are watching it on their computers using lcd goggles. check out my response to an earlier commenter, regarding the multi-viewer problems of delivering 3d tv in the lounge room
"not practical"? an odd thing to say.
Sharp's is generally held to be the second-best 3D auto-stereoscopic display in the world. They have been throwing huge amounts of time and investment at it for a decade or more.
it DOES suffer from key image deficiencies, but that's just a function of the parallax-barrier architecture they are using and they have worked hard to address them, while keeping the cost down to a viable price point.
Have a read of this technology overview/comparison for more info: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98159&cid=8385 521
Slashdot Mirror
more goats
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
While not disagreeing with this in a truly theoretical sense, the human being is far less tractable in real life. And the human being in a group is truly a throwback to a darker, more primeval time.
Humans have not changed markedly in the last 3,000 years or so of written history. There's nothing to suggest we're about to have a sudden burst of emotional evolution as a species, or even of emotional maturity in individuals.
And so that tends to suggest that adaptations to the new technologies will have to be either built into that new technology, or societies, cultures, groups, and individuals will just have to wear the effectively random consequences of the new pressures on them.
This occurs despite explicit promises to the electorate when the tax file number was introduced, that it would NEVER be used for this sort of purpose.
Add to this the ability to track online activity by merging on:
"Privacy" guarantees are torn down at the merest suggestion of higher purposes, and data is then freely shared. This can have excellent results: attacking paedophile rings. But it can also have wider, less salubrious results, when blind application of some new hysteria and a couple of incidental "hits" on the database scan sucks innocents into a nightmare.
Disk is cheap too. A startling amount of on-line activity is routinely recorded. The very first internet sourced "crack" can still be viewed, keystroke for keystroke...
In a world where paediatricians have been attacked by mobs and hospitalised following newspaper campaigns against paedophiles, where 20 year olds are exposed in "underage drinking scandals", where unfair or incorrect criminal convictions occur, where a data-entry glitch can destroy an innocent person's credit record with no timely hope of appeal against suddenly foreclosed mortgage, where a country parson on holiday is interred as a terrorist suspect based on rigorous computer screening, where political correctness is a moving feast and the witch hunt du jour dominates reasoned thought: it's perhaps a good idea to keep as much off the computer as possible, let alone the wider internet.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
It would also have better bridges and fewer goats.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
With AOL Buddy Lists, Yahoo Messenger, Friendster, and other mappable relationship environments, is it possible the information will soon be used against you?
Of course not! There's absolutely nothing to worry about. That's why I'm happy to participate on the interweb using my real name instead of an anonymous nom de clavier.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
Read my withering rebuttal of this tosh here.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
The linked articles aren't clear. Does anyone know if this case dealt purely with special FCC powers, or was it decided on Sherman anti-trust grounds?
If it was on Sherman anti-trust grounds, I can see why it went this way. The courts are very reluctant to apply such a devastating remedy, and tend to read down any application.
Interestingly/counter-intuitively, American regulators have effectively NO useful anti-monopoly or anti-abuse-of-market-position powers. Sherman Act gives only the financial equivalent of the nuclear bomb. Below that, there's essentially nothing: no system of graded fines or automatic restraint/requirement orders, no ability to remove company officers or investigate pricing, nothing.
The courts and regulators could do with a few more blackjacks, shillelaghs, and baseball bats, with some pointed sticks thrown in for more serious cases.
Then you'd be less likely to see such extremes of legal position. The regulators/courts could adopt middle grounds more reasonable to all parties.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
Another troll, surely. Boy, aren't there a lot of them about today.i d=8456964
http://books.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=97498&c
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
>Wow, it's really great to see a spectator who appreciates our sport. Sadly, merely looking up to someone does not magically transfer their knowledge into your skull. [...] You need to get out more. I suggest college as a worthwhile destination.
This HAS to be a troll, surely. Apart from the pointless abuse, the attitude is asinine. It's almost a parody of the problem the above poster said he'd observed-- "you criticise my mad skills? FAH! Observe my PIECE OF PAPER, fool."
For the record, I have 3 degrees and don't choose to sneer at people who "merely" know more than I do about something by virtue of actually having done it.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
The Saturnians have taken notice that this vessel is on a trajectory to permanently enter their planetary system [...] If the spacecraft does not alter its course soon, [...]
Or maybe if the spokes aren't visible, it's because someone nicked the Saturnians' bike.
This could also explain the posited incoherence:- rage-choked fist-waving Saturnian hordes milling backwards and forwards under the constant swirling clouds, roaring "Give us back our blurry bike!" at the intruder spacecraft above desperately trying to signal its non-hostile intentions by firing its Attitude Jets.
"<cough><blurt><cough><rrrRRRR!> Dude! In your face! Take your job and shove it up your"
Yes! They're firing! The spacecraft is saved!
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
The "spokes" are odd disruptions in the rings caused by Saturn's magnetic field rotating through them. They show up as dark patches radiating directly away from Saturn or occasionally arching, and they travel like a wave around Saturn in time with its rotation. It was this timing/speed that tipped astronomers off as to what was causing them, incidentally.
So if the spokes aren't visible now, maybe Saturn's magnetic field is fluctuating/less coherent than normal. It's a gas giant so its field could be less stable than the denser planets. There may be some low-level eg mid-atmosphere storm disrupting the normal field-generating circulations.
Just a thought. IANAA
cheers, Sal
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
nb: the same applies to humans under 1meter tall
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
other way round, actually.
the human's proportion of surface area to volume is much much higher than a space ship. as you make objects larger, the surface area tends to increase in square proportion, the volume in cubic proportion. so the ratio of surface-area to volume decreases as things get bigger. cats freeze quicker than humans, humans freeze quicker than elephants (not least 'cos they're buggers to get into the fridge).
i could be a smartarse at this point, and point out that the spaceship, being comprised primarily of metal in its solid state, is in fact already frozen. but i won't.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
I read in the papers last year one of the South Korean MMOGs had an actual war, with thousands on either side fighting coordinated battles, complete with military hierarchies, to achieve solely in-game-decided game-relevant game-objectives.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
I don't understand. Surely they could have found a real person on the internet who had a fetish about being strapped to the outside of a rocket and shot into space? Their results would be guaranteed to be realistic that way: actual bone surrounded by actual organs and actual skin.
Legally, as long as they didn't eat him they should be all right.
cheers, Sal
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
Yeah, I've always thought this too. And it's mostly right -- you certainly will never see that cringe-worthy bad-sci-fi staple of liquids "freezing and boiling at the same time."
But interestingly, I discovered just last week if you take a spaceship out of direct sunshine, it starts to lose heat pretty substantially. One of the first space stations (I forget which) had its heatshield buggered up by over-early deployment and it started to overheat dramatically. An astronaut pushed an umbrella arrangement out an airlock to provide cover from the sun, and the temperature "immediately began to drop" (ok, a little obvious) and was within the expected range within a day. I saw this on "The Planets" TV show which was excellently researched, so I'd assume this was pretty valid.
In summary, radiation of heat seems to still provide a pretty good cooling mechanism in space, despite being much slower than conduction.
So while you'll be relieved to know you'll asphyxiate in comfort and warmth, you'll eventually become a corpsicle if you stay out of the sun(light).
cheers, Sal
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
sorry, couldn't resist.
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
:) There's a world of difference between "practical" and "competitive", or even "identical." And no, they are not gradations on a scale.
Re the 3D image aspects, yes, these are a function of the parallax barrier approach's intrinsic limitations.
A key killer, tho, for the sharp display is their lack of coherent marketing. Everyone should know about it. Only some technologists do.
" "
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
Amusing.
Whoops! Too late.
A story expressed in simple text is not intrinsically superior to one expressed in another medium.
A painting is not automatically better than a sculpture because it has fewer dimensions. Mime is not automatically better than theatre because it has no words. A modern movie is not necessarily worse than a silent movie because it provides actual voices instead of relying on the audience's imagination.
The key distinction between a simple novel and a movie or a comic or a theatrical production is that the director/artist-author/director has the opportunity to present HIS view, HIS visualisation, rather than relying on the loosely-coupled hopefully-consonant imagination of the reader.
As is obvious from your own words:
; you pretty much understand this yourself, you are just letting some odd internal reaction to the phrase "comic book" blind you to what the medium can offer.
Some examples of alternate narrative media, in case your imagination fails you:
Much of the Goon Show's humour was delightful audio tricks which can not be translated to TV or text where it relies on building up the listener's expectations of a scene then revealing something quite different. ("Oi'm the anti-climax.") Mime and ballet are narratives which use NO text at all, and have been around rather longer than the novel as an artform. Theatre uses wildly exaggerated makeup and expressions and voice-volumes to express the director's intent through the "mask" of bright lights and long distance. Movies convey a powerful sense of scene, but are very poor at conveying characters' motivations and thoughts directly, being forced to do so only indirectly through word and deed. Pictures have been used to express narratives and stories for quite some time. Cavemen sketched hunts, kingdoms sketched battles, religions sketched key events, such as the christian church's "twelve stations of the cross" displayed prominently in most churches.
In this context, a comic/graphic novel most closely parallels the movie as a narrative medium.
I believe the name "graphic novel" was introduced less to bamboozle morons into believing they're suddenly rubbing shoulders with Thackeray and Rand, and more to avoid the sort of blinkered knee-jerk reaction some people seem to get when they see pictures and words together. No offence.
It can be. So can a movie or a play.
It doesn't need to be. That's down to the particular movie/comic/play. And down to the particular watcher/reader/audience member too.
Then comics are not for you. Neither are movies, theatre, or TV.
My recommendation: don't read or see them, save your time for stuff you personally enjoy. And maybe that will give you the time and mental breathing space to build sufficient perspective not to seek to belittle those whose tastes are broader or more variable or less rigidly dictated than your own.
Personally, I take each narrative medium on its merits. If I'm not in the mood for a movie, I don't go to the cinema. If I'm not in the mood for a book, I don't read one. Each has its own strengths and weaknesses, and therefore will tend to better reward some types of narrative (and mood) than others. Doesn't mean an
when? yeeeesh... many yonks back. late 70s early 80s?
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
Can anyone confirm for me whether Alan Moore was Alec Trench in that great old 2000AD one-off in-joke?
:)
Alec Trench was the "frustrated unappreciated writer" who--IIRC- it was QUITE a while ago (prog 100 or thereabouts?)-- attempted to leap to his death with his typewriter chained round his neck and then headed off to seek his fortune and reward for true worth in America, silhouetted against the horizon in the last panel, shaking his fist at the unappreciative ingrates he was leaving behind. Beardy, wild-haired...
I really hope it was-- it'd make it a delightful double in-joke-- he's proved he was right!
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
CRT...LCD front screen
I believe these guys plus some flavours (eg plasma) are still going. The issues preventing take-off remain the same: refresh rate.
the amount of data required for 3D TV (or 3D movies) for these kind of screens is immense. Whilst modern digital satellite TV can carry hundreds of channels from a single satellite the same satellite would only be able to carry a handful of 3D broadcasts (if you want to ensure a decent 3D picture). I think you'd probably need something faster than Internet 2 for cable-based transmission
Err, sorry, I don't mean to be rude here, but whoever gave you your information is very wrong. The additional data needs for 3D broadcast are very minor. The bandwidth capabilities of broadcast TV and cable TV are more than adequate to the task.
To understand why, you should look at how the various MPEGs (or TiVo) compress a moving picture. Essentially, the only full picture is the first, and thereafter each "frame" only stores the changes from the preceding frame.
So a simple way to make a TV broadcast 3D would be to broadcast one "eye" as the normal broadcast, and to add another stream which records only the changes to that eye's image to create the other eye's image. This approach prevents breaking existing TVs: ordinary TVs work normally off the unchanged transmission, while 3D TVs can have the extra in-TV intelligence to build the other eye's images.
Have a look at this overview and the 3DTV-specific comments and answers attached to it.
cheers
Sal
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com
dunno about yer aussie chap, but 3D tv is i believe regularly broadcast in the usa. the issue is, how do you view it? i can only assume people are watching it on their computers using lcd goggles. check out my response to an earlier commenter, regarding the multi-viewer problems of delivering 3d tv in the lounge room
"not practical"? an odd thing to say.5 521
Sharp's is generally held to be the second-best 3D auto-stereoscopic display in the world. They have been throwing huge amounts of time and investment at it for a decade or more.
it DOES suffer from key image deficiencies, but that's just a function of the parallax-barrier architecture they are using and they have worked hard to address them, while keeping the cost down to a viable price point.
Have a read of this technology overview/comparison for more info: http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=98159&cid=838
cheers
Sal
--
Sal
Writings: saltation.blogspot.com
Wravings: go-blog-go.blogspot.com