Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×

Comment Is 2D any different? (Score 1) 99

by tomek.bury (#48333101) Attached to: French Health Watchdog: 3D Viewing May Damage Eyesight In Children

Comming to think of it, a plain old 2D display has the same issues.

The distance from viewer to display is fixed, yet the watched content changes from close-ups to wide panorama, so both convergence and focal point are in conflict with what the viewer sees. On top of that the camera FOV creates permanently blurry areas that can't be fixed by the viewer changing focus. Blue tint on the picture of supposedly far mointains lies about the real distance and the focal point of the viewer is, again, in conflict colour shift preceived by retina. Moving viewers head doesn't show the scene from a slightly different perspective, as it should. A film watched from an angle looks really awkward. Camera movement isn't backed up by the inner ear receptors and that may lead to motion sicknes. Depth usually isn't essential for the story telling, but colour isn't either, and picture (radio anyone?) and sound for that matter (books existed long before movies).

The panic on the Lumiere Brothers train film shows clearly that cinema is in opposition to the natural human capabilities and a mere century certainly didn't change much in that respect - evolution doesn't work that fast.

Think how weird a person wearing early stereophonic headphones looked to people not too long ago. Almost as weird as a person wearing stereoscopic googles looks to many of us today. Think of all the issues with stereophonc audio, compared to the real world experience - stereo audio is not even close to real, just like stereoscopic video. To make it slightly closet, the 3D covers of BluRay discs use shots from 8 angles to mimic 3D picture, just like 7+1 audio systems do to mimic 3D sound.

The stereoscopic 3D is no that different from other techmologies. It's not perfect, but what is?

Submission + - Dyreza Banker Trojan Can Bypass SSL, Two-Factor Authentication 1

Submitted by Trailrunner7
Trailrunner7 writes: Banker Trojans have proven to be reliable and effective tools for attackers interested in quietly stealing large amounts of money from unwitting victims. Zeus, Carberp and many others have made piles of money for their creators and the attackers who use them, and researchers have been looking at a newer banker Trojan that has the ability to bypass SSL protection for banking sessions by redirecting traffic through the attackers’ own domains.

The Trojan, which is being called either Dyre or Dyreza by researchers, uses a technique known as browser hooking to intercept traffic flowing between the victim’s machine and the target Web site. The malware arrives in users’ inboxes through spam messages, many of which will look like messages from a financial institution. The list of targeted banks includes Bank of America, Natwest, Citibank, RBS and Ulsterbank. Researchers say that much of the activity from the Trojan so far is in the U.K.

“The traffic, when you browse the Internet, is being controlled by the attackers. They use a MiTM (Man in The Middle) approach and thus are able to read anything, even SSL traffic in clear text. This way they will also try to circumvent 2FA,” an analysis by Peter Kruse at CSIS says.

Comment Patents vs. the laws of physics (Score 1) 121

by tomek.bury (#42346781) Attached to: The Mark Cuban Chair To Eliminate Stupid Patents
Patent law demands the people to defy the laws of physics. It's obvious from the court cases that examining the true meaning, depth and breadth of a single patent can take months or years. On the other hand USPTO granted 247,713 patents in 2011 alone. Assuming a full-time job (240 working days and 8 hours a day) this equates to 129 patents per hour. It's physically impossible to even read the monopoly rights granted to patent holders. Even if that was possible it's still impossible to analyse and understand the selected patents that my be related to the line of business. Even if that was possible the language used in paten applications make impossible to judge the validity and extend of the patent protection. Can an inventor or small company be held responsible for not defying the laws of physics? I'm not talking about the negligence. It's physically impossible to keep up with the current rate of patent granting. Would that be a sufficient defence line?

Submission + - "No Power for the Parliament" warns EPO examiners 2

Submitted by zoobab
zoobab writes: The Staff Union of the EPO (SUEPO) sent a letter to the President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, warning of risks for the European Parliament to be "circumvented" as a legislator when the EU will accede to the European Patent Convention (EPC). The European Patent Organisation is everything except a model of democracy: national patent offices are in power, there is no parliament involved in the decision making process, and diplomatic conferences are held behind closed doors. There are plans to create a central patent court in Europe, which would operate in a democratic vacuum, as it would not be counterbalanced by any legislative assembly, let alone the European Parliament. Such central patent court could also validate software patents via caselaw (as it was recently done with the Microsoft FAT patent by the German Supreme Court), and Microsoft, IBM or SAP are lobbying in Brussels not to reopen the software patent directive.

Slashdot Top Deals

For God's sake, stop researching for a while and begin to think!

Close