A search on their patent refs leads nowhere except to their site.

This remind me the Great Oil Sniffer Hoax

I vaguely remember a comic where a mars explorer writes his monotonous diary, and where the most exciting moment of the week would be to go a few metres far to have a look at a slightly darker stone...

Is that an xkcd ? I can't find it.

6) Paralax can be consistently observed in real 3D display scene when you move and change your point of view, whereas the stereoscopic display lure the brain that there would be paralax effect if you move but, when you try to do so, it doesn't happen, you can't make a close object actualy translate faster than a distant one, and you won't see what's behind neither - not more that the other eye was already seeing.

Back to previous points:

#1) Yes, we can have all plans in focus at once for a stereoscopic display (like in video games), and it's more comfortable than not being able to focus on a plan that wasn't chosen to be displayed in focus.
But then there is still a difference for the user experience: when all points are in focus one is much more distracted by a distant background detail when locking at a close object. For a real 3D display the fact that only one plan can be in focus on observer's eyes retina is an advantage for the immersion of the observer and the depth feeling.
Yet, all-plans-in-focus-display can be an advantage for some specific purpose, like surveillance.

#3)

It's indeed a physical effect on your retina, due to optical eye property and geometry, where the really out of focus plan is completely blured, so the brain hasn't the information to process anymore.
Try again: focus on a detail 15cm from you and try to pay attention to a car one km away (almost align both): you won't even see that car.
Maybe some people can't do this experiment easily, but the popular blind spot experiment show that many people can center their gaze at a point while paying attention to another, you should be able to do so with some training and understand what I try to explain.

#4)

My argument is more like 2+0.5 != 3 , as you can read above.
Today's stereoscopic display only advantage on 2D picture is that eyes have a different perspective, that's nice but far from real 3D display. Focus issues, paralax, different perspectives for different observers (at once with the same device), ... there's so much missing to reach what real 3D display achieves.
I have a video game analogy, with some 2D games (Tetris), 3D games (Quake & many FPS), and 2.5D games. It's not about the display here, but the game immersion and possibilities.

#5)

The observer is not the display device. The fact that my eyes don't see the same image when I'm looking at an object doesn't mean that this object is stereoscopic. This isn't a property of the object.
The full holographic 3D display (Startrek one or other lab's device) doesn't make only two images available, one for each eye, but an infinity of images can be perceived, one for each place from which you can see it. Whereas stereoscopic devices present only two images, no matter what.
Also two spectators with the same real 3D display device will see the scene with a different perspective, while the stereoscopic "3D" movie show the same perspective for everyone.

I hope I haven't been trolled here and that I've been more than clear now, otherwise I won't know what I could add.

I'd like to stress the differences between my real 3D (a) and your fake 3D (b).

1) Looking at 3D(a) scene, a spectator can focus his eyes on whatever point he wants, whereas the 3D(b) scene offers only one focus plan, which leads to problems and this is the whole point of my previous post and its parent post.

2) Fixed and non fixed perspective exists for both 3D(a) and 3D(b), so I don't get your argument here.
Fixed for 3D(a) is achieved by not being able to move relatively to the displayed scene (just sit there), and non fixed for 3D(b) is available with headset,walking pad, and CGI.

3) A simple test that I recommend to you: experiment real 3D(a) with only one eye and fixed perspective !
If you don't have a real 3D display in your lab, use the real world instead: Close one eye, look at the horizon through the window, don't move, then watch a dust on the glass (your eye just changes focus). You won't see the same thing, will you? Try this with your fake 3D(b): not possible.

4) Your equation 2D+depth=3D is only valid when depth isn't only a limited feeling of depth, as provided by stereoscopic pictures.
Again this limitation that I stress is the point of my previous post and its parent.

5) Startrek holograms, or today's lab real 3D displays, are not stereoscopy, even with a very pedantic sense. Why? See previous points 1,3,4.

I hope those differences will enlight you and demonstrate the vast superiority of real 3D display (that I call 3D for short) and your fake 3D (the stereoscopic effect).

Let's face it: so called 3D movies today are a marketing scam, and I wonder:

How will they call the real 3D display when it gets out of labs to be in mass products?
Even "real 3D" is already used by the stereoscopic movies... So?

May I remind you all that the so called 3D movies are not 3D but only stereoscopic movies.

You only have the depth perception, but you won't turn around the scene as you would be able to do with a 3D volume display.

There isn't any issue of focus with a real 3D movie (volume display), since the spectator focuses his eyes on the part of the scene he watches.

Of course I agree with the focus issues that the stereoscopic movies have.

The best answer would be a Net Gun.

From market or DIY. That's $400 or $60-$80.

I think many of the catched drone parts can be salvaged, after the fall.

Actually you also confirm that they are criminals ? I find it quite ironic, but I understand what you mean: not inherently criminals but turned into because of the rest of the world.

However your rationale does not explain what I have experienced from them.

Also, their kids have pretty much a hard time in school due to bullying, they really need to hang on, but they can achieve a decent scholarship if they really want to and get out of their slum. And become a lawyer! I know one, she succeeded (and no longer looks like one of them).

And again: this is off topic, I won't go further in this discussion.

I will not comment on your rant about Romani, everyone in Europe may have his own experience regarding those people, and I do as well.

However, mentioning this group seems a bit off-topic, since there are not homeless living in the street:
They always quickly setup their slum camp in any 'free' area they can find.
Those are not great homes, but a two years old slum camp will have upgraded the garbage tents into small homes with heating, electricity and TV Sat.

Oh dear... then you missed the utter ecstatic joy of viciously trolling a moderator until he quit his job, while pissing off the whole community who praise him as one of the best ever.

Err... wait... did I misssed the anonymous toggle ?

You are not the devils advocate.

Your argument boils down to :
" Any pointless activity that consume goods is good for the economy. "

If you think this kind of behaviour drives us in the right direction for the material well-being, you must be quite an economist ! :)

What really annoy me with HFT, besides not being "fair", it that it as a cost and that the society doesn't benefit from it.

Building a stock exchange with top-notch computers if fine, since there is a need fulfilled here for our society.

But building new warehouses as close as possible to stock exchange computers to house top speed fiber connected computers, just to lower the delays from 600ms down to 10ms or so, to allow HFT, is a waste of resources.
No one needs that, it's just a smart way to build a sucking vampire over information systems. And this cost is always somehow reflected to society.

One big bank of my country paid a lot to move all its crucial infrastructure abroad, in such new buildings, to be able to compete in HFT.
Who's paying for those efforts? The company, the bank, instead of doing something more useful to society (investments to improve their services, etc).

You may have a look to aerial views of the event: there is plenty of space in the desert. However I don't know if they are limited by law or regulations.

This idea is indeed a mitigation, you perfectly understood my point.