Thats why it requires twice the frame rate: two images, one for each eye in the same original frame rate. This means twice the overall frame rate. At double the frame rate, you do not get a dimming of the image.
Holovizio is 3D with different perspective based on viewpoint, but you CANNOT walk behind the monitor and see the backside of the image. So since even that is limited field of view, nothing really meets your definition of 3D except sci-fi in the movies.
I dont have a disdain for US laws, I have a disdain for fundamentalist interpretations of them, and being able to buy your way out of jail time if you are right enough.
There's no real time aspect to this. It's not a conversation if I don't get back to you for a week or six months, or never read your response.
But now? All we need to do is find the one person on earth who thinks that this particular conversation that we have been having is inappropriate for you to be having with a 13 yearold.
Really? I thought we still had due process. So instead of being found innocent by judge or jury, the prosecutor simply needs to find a single person on the planet willing to state a person is guilty? Wow - maybe I will move to the country and buy a gun.
Who would have thunk some teenager sending a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend would end with her being charged with distributing child pornography.
Would not happen here in Canada, even with this law. Americans seem to be complaining about this law but ridiculous arrests like that one seem to only happen in the US.
No. I'm responding to posts by an AC that can be one or more people. Besides, even if you posed with an identifiable name, nothing here would ever possibly be taken as luring by anyone with half a braincell. Hell, you'd have to be the biggest moron on the planet to think this was luring, or in any way related to that law.
I reply to posts on the internet - just like this one.
This, by any stretch, would never be considered a chat room. This is not a conversation.
In fact, there is only one thing that makes me sure that making this post isn't a crime under this law - I'm not in Canada.
Actually I'll take Canadian law over American any day. At least here it isn't person with the most expensive lawyer gets off. Nor are there silly fundamentalist laws preventing schools from teaching children about biology and science.
This law does not infringe anyones rights to free speech nor does anyone need to be afraid of going to jail for potentially responding to the posts of a 12 year old. Get a grip.
This is ridiculous fear mongering. None of you are actually serious are you? If you really think that this is constituting an offence under the intent of the law, then please, by all means file a complaint and see how far it goes.
but it's not hard to envision circumstances in which a Slashdot poster might find themselves in a shitload of trouble because of some obtuse thread involving a minor.
Really? Propose a conversation that might actually happen here that would be in scope of this law.
Shared photos is not the same as posting on the internet. If your government is a bunch of fundamentalist nutbars pushing their moral interpretation on everyone else, thats not my problem. Vote in someone that doesn't have a crazy personal agenda.
Yet here we are in 2009, and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...
How is having a picture on your phone equivalent to posting on the internet? And if they are posting underage photos on the net, then yes they should get into trouble.
Slashdot Mirror
No I'm not joking. I honestly do not see the racial connection with Jar Jar.
And the fact that I don't see racism everywhere is no reason to try and insult me.
Woosh? Gungans (particularly their Ebonics) showed George Lucas racist sentiments toward uneducated black Americans.
I've never heard of this before. Who came up with that bullshit interpretation?
What's next? Because Yoda doesn't speak with correct grammar he's somehow racist too?
Give me a break.
I agree. Racist? How is that possibly racist?
You're right - half is half, realized this later. Although displays I've seen increase the brightness when using shutter glasses to compensate.
Just get a PS3 - future proof.
Thats why it requires twice the frame rate: two images, one for each eye in the same original frame rate. This means twice the overall frame rate. At double the frame rate, you do not get a dimming of the image.
Holovizio is 3D with different perspective based on viewpoint, but you CANNOT walk behind the monitor and see the backside of the image. So since even that is limited field of view, nothing really meets your definition of 3D except sci-fi in the movies.
Stereo is 3D, just single viewpoint.
Sorry - that should be 'rich enough' not 'right enough'
I dont have a disdain for US laws, I have a disdain for fundamentalist interpretations of them, and being able to buy your way out of jail time if you are right enough.
There's no real time aspect to this. It's not a conversation if I don't get back to you for a week or six months, or never read your response.
I didn't find the extensions clumsy - I just found too many sites that didn't work quite right with Firefox. Chrome doesn't seem to have that problem.
Why would you want to say prejudiced things about anyone?
But now? All we need to do is find the one person on earth who thinks that this particular conversation that we have been having is inappropriate for you to be having with a 13 yearold.
Really? I thought we still had due process. So instead of being found innocent by judge or jury, the prosecutor simply needs to find a single person on the planet willing to state a person is guilty? Wow - maybe I will move to the country and buy a gun.
Who would have thunk some teenager sending a nude picture of herself to her boyfriend would end with her being charged with distributing child pornography.
Would not happen here in Canada, even with this law. Americans seem to be complaining about this law but ridiculous arrests like that one seem to only happen in the US.
No. I'm responding to posts by an AC that can be one or more people. Besides, even if you posed with an identifiable name, nothing here would ever possibly be taken as luring by anyone with half a braincell. Hell, you'd have to be the biggest moron on the planet to think this was luring, or in any way related to that law.
I reply to posts on the internet - just like this one.
This, by any stretch, would never be considered a chat room. This is not a conversation.
In fact, there is only one thing that makes me sure that making this post isn't a crime under this law - I'm not in Canada.
Actually I'll take Canadian law over American any day. At least here it isn't person with the most expensive lawyer gets off. Nor are there silly fundamentalist laws preventing schools from teaching children about biology and science.
This law does not infringe anyones rights to free speech nor does anyone need to be afraid of going to jail for potentially responding to the posts of a 12 year old. Get a grip.
Are you a member of the Canadian Supreme Court, that you speak with such certainty?
Are you?
This is ridiculous fear mongering. None of you are actually serious are you? If you really think that this is constituting an offence under the intent of the law, then please, by all means file a complaint and see how far it goes.
No I'm not.
Don't be ridiculous.
No I'm not talking to you. I'm broadcasting a public message to an open forum. This does not apply.
I mean, how do I know that by responding to you that I'm not talking to a thirteen year old?
It does not matter how old anyone is. This is a general open forum. When you respond you are not actually responding only to the original poster.
Do you actually consider this to be a 'conversation'? This is more of a group discussion than a conversation.
but it's not hard to envision circumstances in which a Slashdot poster might find themselves in a shitload of trouble because of some obtuse thread involving a minor.
Really? Propose a conversation that might actually happen here that would be in scope of this law.
Shared photos is not the same as posting on the internet. If your government is a bunch of fundamentalist nutbars pushing their moral interpretation on everyone else, thats not my problem. Vote in someone that doesn't have a crazy personal agenda.
Yet here we are in 2009, and teenagers seem to get in trouble for pictures on their phones every week...
How is having a picture on your phone equivalent to posting on the internet? And if they are posting underage photos on the net, then yes they should get into trouble.
No it would not. Anyone can see that.