I haven't read TFA yet, but the headaches are easily explained. Stereoscopy isn't the only thing that makes 3D. Besides stereoscopy and various forms of perspective, the eye's focusing distance tells the brain how far away something is as well. So you have your eyes' focus telling your brain an object is six feet away (the distance to your TV set) while the stereoscopy tells your brain it's two or fifteen feet away. That causes the focusing muscles to fight the eye positioning muscles.
You won't have that problem when you hit 40 and your eyes' lenses get too hard to focus (the reason geezers need reading glasses). I'll have to RTFA to see about the "brain damage" part, but it might explain the occasional painless optical migraines I get since I had the implant in my left eye.
I was going to link wikipedia, which used to have a very good article on optical migraines, but it's gone, and a search by someone who suffered one might freak out even more than he will when he gets one It differs from a retinal migraines in that it's in both eyes, and is entirely in the brain and has nothing to do with the eyes at all. this article is full of errors; the article that has obviously been pulled (or google is acting up again) but it's close. There were illustrations in the one that was pulled that were exactly like what happens when you have one. When it's happened to me, it was never followed by a headache.
I hightailed it to my eye doctor the first time I had one, and was told it's nothing to worry about and had it explained to me. It was after that I looked it up ion wikipedia and found the article that isn't there any more (two or three years ago).
I could have told him that 3D years ago. Besides, that's probably Rority posting again, he has no trouble traveling through time.
Re:Handicapping, Ridiculous, Anti-Progress
on
3D Hurts Your Eyes
·
· Score: 1
From TFS: "After experimenting on 24 adults, a research team at the University of California, Berkeley has determined that viewing content on a stereo 3D display hurts your eyes and your brain.
I immediately thought of Monty Python. "Shut off that TV, it's bad for your eyes!"
and
"My Brain hurts!" "Well it will have to come out then."
And, lets face it, Google+ is shiny to geeks and muggles alike
Yes, but it does have a few rough edges. I wanted to add/. users chill, rk, and tqft but can't find them. Chill, for example, has a common name and I see six people with his name. I tried to search for "chill" and got a lot of people with "chill" as their last names. rk (IIRC) was trying to find me, there were already 3 of me there.
Patty doesn't seem to have any trouble with it at all, though. Maybe it's because the iPhone app is better than using a PC, or maybe it's because she's 24. Or maybe my brain's still not working right after all this heat.
BTW, did you know that Rowling didn't coin the word "muggles"? It was a slang term for marijuana in the 30s and 40s (before my time). I call them "normtards", because their IQs are as far below ours as a mentally retarded person's IQ is below theirs (I've been pretty retarded myself this week).
My daughter was more than thrilled to get an invite from me. "You got a G+ invite? Wow, how did you manage that???"
Of course, she works at a GameStop. My girlfriend's daughter never heard of G+.
G+ still has a few rough edges; for example, I can't get.3g2 videos I took on my phone to upload; it just returns an error that says "status: error". I took the videos with a Motorola phone, they play fine on my Linux PC.
Patty's on it. As to the GGP's "sausagefest", so far it's mostly us nerds on it. Note how few woman there are posting to slashdot.
Most non-nerds have never even heard of it. Kathie's daughter and her friend were talking about their facebooks and I mentioned that I wasn't on facebook but I was on G+. Blank stare. "What's that?"
I told them about it and they were especially interested in the "circles". I think Facebook is the new MySpace; FB was a better MS than MS, G+ is a better FB than FB.
As to Patty, she's outnerding her old man; she took to G+ like a fish to water while I'm still trying to figure out how to rename an album.
Can you prove you got it legally? Hell, most of my CDs are burned from sampled LPs and cassettes.
There's a deliberate joke on Skynard's Second Helping LP that AFAIK is not there on the remixed CD. At the beginning of "Working' for MCA" there's a deliberate bit of noise making fun of the record company; a very quiet "schwing!" followed by a 60 hz (plus harmonics) hum like you would get from a badly shielded cable.
Anything that was originally analog but digitally remixed for CD is crap; at least, what I've heard so far. Boston's 1st album and Zeppelin's Presence are especially bad. Ironically the CDs lack dynamics, even though CDs have better dynamic range. An LP you sample and burn yourself will sound better than the remixed CD.
If I uploaded my legally purchased analog music I'd be getting letters from lawyers.
I think I'll wait until hell freezes over. I'll keep my data stored on my own devices; storage is dirt cheap and the storage devices are very small these days. I just don't see any advantage to uploading my music to anybody, especially Google since they yanked my mcgrew@gmail.com address a few years ago with no explanation or recourse; I'd used it to correspond with friends and family, sign up for subscriptions to/. and such but that was all. I'd hate to have half of my music on Google and have it just disappear.
After the gmail debacle I no longer trust Google. Yeah, I have a G+ account but no way will I not have my pictures stored locally.
You must have never known a creative person, or read Asimov or Doctorow. Doctorow writes that he wanted to be an author since he was six years old; six year olds don't care about money. Asimov wrote frequently in forwards to stories in collections of short stories that for him, writing was an addiction. Van Gogh sold exactly one painting in his entire life -- to his brother, for a pittance. Creative people create because they must.
I feel sorry for people whose only goal in life is filthy lucre. What an empty life that must be.
Do you think people sing in karaoke bars to make money or get laid? Here's a clue -- the best way to NOT get laid is to sing kareoke. Musicians make music because they love music. If they can get paid or laid for it, that's just icing on the cake.
So we mix some code together and it's what? Not what nature intended? Who give a rat's patoot? Are we playing [insert favorite diety here]? Again, so what?
When you say "Not what nature intended" you already did play [insert favorite diety here] -- you're talking about the Wiccan religion (which is the religion Christians borrowed the Easter Bunny and the Christmas tree from). Their god is Mother Nature.
Recent studies show that religion is hard-wired into the human brain, but like empathy or intelligence it varies from person to person. Just as a sociopath has no empathy, an atheist has no hard wired religious tendencies.
Religion quite obviously has some evolutionary advantages or it wouldn't exist. Atheism and sociopathy must also have some evolutionary advantages as well (or at least small disadvantages).
If you think writers only write to sell books you're pretty ignorant of the creative type's thought processes. Creative people HAVE to create. They can no more easily stop creating than a junkie can quit drugs. That goes for painters, musicians, all creative types.
If all you're writing for is to sell books, all you'll produce is hackwork that's not worth reading.
One thing we haven't really realized is that any animal with vocal chords also has a speech center in their brain and speaks to other animals. True that we know of no other animal with speech as complex or sophisticated as ours, but anyone who doesn't understand what a dog is saying when he tells you "get the fuck away from my territory or I'll eat you" or "OUCH" is more dimwitted than the dog.
You think birds or whales sing to make music? I doubt any species but us make music.
I think more people should loose their funding; science would advance more quickly if it were better funded. But I also don't think you said what you meant to say.
This is further complicated in context by the fact that at some point we may have caused animals to be intelligent and therefore ethically should we not afford them the same rights/freedoms as us? And prevent abuse on them too?
Heinlein pondered this in 1947 (the link is to the full text of Jerry Was A Man). And what was that line from Star Trek IV? Something along the lines of "my compassion for someone doesn't depend on how intelligent they are".
It wasn't just games, either. We got new "Pee Seas" (as someone called them) at work ten or so years ago, and FoxPro 6 wouldn't run, even though they used the same OS (Win 98).
I can't agree with the premise of TFA, although I agree with your "hopes and fears". As a teenager in the '60s the 21st century was science fiction, and it's here -- and more and better than the writers imagined. Take Star Trek; I was 14 when it came on the air. Doors that opened by themselves, flat screen voice activated computers, communicators, McCoy's sick bay were all fantasies that we'd never see in our lifetimes. Now every supermarket door opens by itself, Windows comes with voice activation "out of the box" (granted, it has to be quiet for it to work) and if anybody told me that one day I'd own my own computer I'd think they were crazy. Your computer and TV have flat screens, your cell phone far surpasses Kirk's quaint communicator, and as I hinted at in a journal entry about a friend's hospital stay, McCoy would be jealous of a modern hospital. In STII McCoy gave Kirk reading glasses, I have an implant in my left eye that gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances.
Cyborgs were science fiction. Today, because of that implant, I am a cyborg! So are most people my age.
They had jet packs in the '60s. There's a flying car ready to hit the market; a hybrid carplane that will be on sale next year. Death rays? Got 'em. Stand in front of the wrong military radar antenna and you're cooked like a hot pocket. Phasers? Nope, we have tasers.
We've gone WAY past what was predicted. Take the internet, for example -- nobody forsaw that. The closest anybody came was Murray Leinster's 1946 short story A Logic Named Joe (full text linked).
I live in a science fiction world! I envy you young people. You can't possibly imagine what you're going to see in your lifetime.
Slashdot Mirror
I just RTFA, it says nothing about hurting your brain. Phew!
I haven't read TFA yet, but the headaches are easily explained. Stereoscopy isn't the only thing that makes 3D. Besides stereoscopy and various forms of perspective, the eye's focusing distance tells the brain how far away something is as well. So you have your eyes' focus telling your brain an object is six feet away (the distance to your TV set) while the stereoscopy tells your brain it's two or fifteen feet away. That causes the focusing muscles to fight the eye positioning muscles.
You won't have that problem when you hit 40 and your eyes' lenses get too hard to focus (the reason geezers need reading glasses). I'll have to RTFA to see about the "brain damage" part, but it might explain the occasional painless optical migraines I get since I had the implant in my left eye.
I was going to link wikipedia, which used to have a very good article on optical migraines, but it's gone, and a search by someone who suffered one might freak out even more than he will when he gets one It differs from a retinal migraines in that it's in both eyes, and is entirely in the brain and has nothing to do with the eyes at all. this article is full of errors; the article that has obviously been pulled (or google is acting up again) but it's close. There were illustrations in the one that was pulled that were exactly like what happens when you have one. When it's happened to me, it was never followed by a headache.
I hightailed it to my eye doctor the first time I had one, and was told it's nothing to worry about and had it explained to me. It was after that I looked it up ion wikipedia and found the article that isn't there any more (two or three years ago).
I could have told him that 3D years ago. Besides, that's probably Rority posting again, he has no trouble traveling through time.
From TFS: "After experimenting on 24 adults, a research team at the University of California, Berkeley has determined that viewing content on a stereo 3D display hurts your eyes and your brain.
I immediately thought of Monty Python. "Shut off that TV, it's bad for your eyes!"
and
"My Brain hurts!"
"Well it will have to come out then."
And, lets face it, Google+ is shiny to geeks and muggles alike
Yes, but it does have a few rough edges. I wanted to add /. users chill, rk, and tqft but can't find them. Chill, for example, has a common name and I see six people with his name. I tried to search for "chill" and got a lot of people with "chill" as their last names. rk (IIRC) was trying to find me, there were already 3 of me there.
Patty doesn't seem to have any trouble with it at all, though. Maybe it's because the iPhone app is better than using a PC, or maybe it's because she's 24. Or maybe my brain's still not working right after all this heat.
BTW, did you know that Rowling didn't coin the word "muggles"? It was a slang term for marijuana in the 30s and 40s (before my time). I call them "normtards", because their IQs are as far below ours as a mentally retarded person's IQ is below theirs (I've been pretty retarded myself this week).
My daughter was more than thrilled to get an invite from me. "You got a G+ invite? Wow, how did you manage that???"
Of course, she works at a GameStop. My girlfriend's daughter never heard of G+.
G+ still has a few rough edges; for example, I can't get .3g2 videos I took on my phone to upload; it just returns an error that says "status: error". I took the videos with a Motorola phone, they play fine on my Linux PC.
Patty's on it. As to the GGP's "sausagefest", so far it's mostly us nerds on it. Note how few woman there are posting to slashdot.
Most non-nerds have never even heard of it. Kathie's daughter and her friend were talking about their facebooks and I mentioned that I wasn't on facebook but I was on G+. Blank stare. "What's that?"
I told them about it and they were especially interested in the "circles". I think Facebook is the new MySpace; FB was a better MS than MS, G+ is a better FB than FB.
As to Patty, she's outnerding her old man; she took to G+ like a fish to water while I'm still trying to figure out how to rename an album.
Shit happens. You've never made a mistake? However, it was Rumsfield's responsibility and ultimately Bush's.
Can you prove you got it legally? Hell, most of my CDs are burned from sampled LPs and cassettes.
There's a deliberate joke on Skynard's Second Helping LP that AFAIK is not there on the remixed CD. At the beginning of "Working' for MCA" there's a deliberate bit of noise making fun of the record company; a very quiet "schwing!" followed by a 60 hz (plus harmonics) hum like you would get from a badly shielded cable.
Anything that was originally analog but digitally remixed for CD is crap; at least, what I've heard so far. Boston's 1st album and Zeppelin's Presence are especially bad. Ironically the CDs lack dynamics, even though CDs have better dynamic range. An LP you sample and burn yourself will sound better than the remixed CD.
If I uploaded my legally purchased analog music I'd be getting letters from lawyers.
Or the KIA automobile. I'll bet they sell a lot of those to combat veterans (not).
I think I'll wait until hell freezes over. I'll keep my data stored on my own devices; storage is dirt cheap and the storage devices are very small these days. I just don't see any advantage to uploading my music to anybody, especially Google since they yanked my mcgrew@gmail.com address a few years ago with no explanation or recourse; I'd used it to correspond with friends and family, sign up for subscriptions to /. and such but that was all. I'd hate to have half of my music on Google and have it just disappear.
After the gmail debacle I no longer trust Google. Yeah, I have a G+ account but no way will I not have my pictures stored locally.
woosh
There's nothing unethical about experimenting on someone with their informed consent, but experimenting on the unwitting is just plain wrong.
LOL, you take a web page purportedly written by a cat seriously?
You must have never known a creative person, or read Asimov or Doctorow. Doctorow writes that he wanted to be an author since he was six years old; six year olds don't care about money. Asimov wrote frequently in forwards to stories in collections of short stories that for him, writing was an addiction. Van Gogh sold exactly one painting in his entire life -- to his brother, for a pittance. Creative people create because they must.
I feel sorry for people whose only goal in life is filthy lucre. What an empty life that must be.
Do you think people sing in karaoke bars to make money or get laid? Here's a clue -- the best way to NOT get laid is to sing kareoke. Musicians make music because they love music. If they can get paid or laid for it, that's just icing on the cake.
So we mix some code together and it's what? Not what nature intended? Who give a rat's patoot? Are we playing [insert favorite diety here]? Again, so what?
When you say "Not what nature intended" you already did play [insert favorite diety here] -- you're talking about the Wiccan religion (which is the religion Christians borrowed the Easter Bunny and the Christmas tree from). Their god is Mother Nature.
Recent studies show that religion is hard-wired into the human brain, but like empathy or intelligence it varies from person to person. Just as a sociopath has no empathy, an atheist has no hard wired religious tendencies.
Religion quite obviously has some evolutionary advantages or it wouldn't exist. Atheism and sociopathy must also have some evolutionary advantages as well (or at least small disadvantages).
If you think writers only write to sell books you're pretty ignorant of the creative type's thought processes. Creative people HAVE to create. They can no more easily stop creating than a junkie can quit drugs. That goes for painters, musicians, all creative types.
If all you're writing for is to sell books, all you'll produce is hackwork that's not worth reading.
One thing we haven't really realized is that any animal with vocal chords also has a speech center in their brain and speaks to other animals. True that we know of no other animal with speech as complex or sophisticated as ours, but anyone who doesn't understand what a dog is saying when he tells you "get the fuck away from my territory or I'll eat you" or "OUCH" is more dimwitted than the dog.
You think birds or whales sing to make music? I doubt any species but us make music.
Then you loose your funding
I think more people should loose their funding; science would advance more quickly if it were better funded. But I also don't think you said what you meant to say.
This is further complicated in context by the fact that at some point we may have caused animals to be intelligent and therefore ethically should we not afford them the same rights/freedoms as us? And prevent abuse on them too?
Heinlein pondered this in 1947 (the link is to the full text of Jerry Was A Man). And what was that line from Star Trek IV? Something along the lines of "my compassion for someone doesn't depend on how intelligent they are".
I explored this in some of my own fiction posted here at slashdot in journals. They're set ten million years in the future and the characters are a species descended from us (we're "protohumans" in the stories). The characters see us as animals, barely sentient. "Yeah, they were smart enough to invent hydrogen bombs and stupid enough to invent hydrogen bombs."
So you submit that ethics are unethical? You would go back to things like Tuskegee syphilis experiment, INjecting people with cancer cells, or any of the other myriad horrors done in the name of science?
Here's an idea -- how about we use you as an experimental subject? I'm sure we can think of some horribly unethical things we could do to you.
Wow, you got grass? Groovy! Can I have a toke?
Um, where am I again? Where's my walker?
It wasn't just games, either. We got new "Pee Seas" (as someone called them) at work ten or so years ago, and FoxPro 6 wouldn't run, even though they used the same OS (Win 98).
I can't agree with the premise of TFA, although I agree with your "hopes and fears". As a teenager in the '60s the 21st century was science fiction, and it's here -- and more and better than the writers imagined. Take Star Trek; I was 14 when it came on the air. Doors that opened by themselves, flat screen voice activated computers, communicators, McCoy's sick bay were all fantasies that we'd never see in our lifetimes. Now every supermarket door opens by itself, Windows comes with voice activation "out of the box" (granted, it has to be quiet for it to work) and if anybody told me that one day I'd own my own computer I'd think they were crazy. Your computer and TV have flat screens, your cell phone far surpasses Kirk's quaint communicator, and as I hinted at in a journal entry about a friend's hospital stay, McCoy would be jealous of a modern hospital. In STII McCoy gave Kirk reading glasses, I have an implant in my left eye that gives me better than 20/20 vision at all distances.
Cyborgs were science fiction. Today, because of that implant, I am a cyborg! So are most people my age.
They had jet packs in the '60s. There's a flying car ready to hit the market; a hybrid carplane that will be on sale next year. Death rays? Got 'em. Stand in front of the wrong military radar antenna and you're cooked like a hot pocket. Phasers? Nope, we have tasers.
We've gone WAY past what was predicted. Take the internet, for example -- nobody forsaw that. The closest anybody came was Murray Leinster's 1946 short story A Logic Named Joe (full text linked).
I live in a science fiction world! I envy you young people. You can't possibly imagine what you're going to see in your lifetime.