Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
I'm not an expert either, but it seems to me that the activity they were seeing in the brain was not in that area. If I recall, they were using those caps with all the wires coming out of them to monitor brain activity, not some of the more sophisticated/expensive machines, so I don't know how accurate that is.
I get that I can simulate it, but I choose not to because it makes me uncomfortable
To your point of not being able to tell how far away anything really was, it's interesting because one of the pages I found during my cursory search said that stereoscopic depth perception only works within about 20 feet, anything further than that, the difference between left and right images is so negligible that your brain doesn't register any difference, and can't determine distance anyway. To get any better distance would require moving the eyes farther apart.
I was going to post something to the effect of:
"If 3D movies don't work on her, she probably has limited or no depth perception, which is a huge problem for driving"
A cursory google search shows stereo vision or depth perception doesn't seem to be a requirement for a driver license, at least in some areas. Only "sufficient vision" and a regular field of view are required. People can get a driver license with only one eye.
Personally, *I* wouldn't feel comfortable driving with limited depth perception, or only one eye, but I'm speaking from the perspective of having both of those things all of my life. I wouldn't feel comfortable doing ANYTHING without depth perception or only having one eye.
I watched a show a few months back, one of those shows where they talk about people with different/special abilities, synesthesia, a German guy who was blind from birth, but could understand and draw perspective, etc.
There was one study they talked about where they had a group of people who were blind in one eye, but the blindness was the result of a brain injury or defect, not a problem with their actual eyes. In the study, the subjects had their sighted eye covered, and were shown pictures of faces with various emotions/expressions to the blind eye. They found that even though they were blind in that eye, they could still "see" the emotion in the faces and would mimic it on their own face.
Basically, they were saying that the visual signals were getting into the brain and were being interpreted on some level by an unknown part of the brain before getting lost in the damaged visual cortex. I wonder if this has something to do with it?
My problem with the whole implementation of Obamacare is that it is supposed to be affordable, however, the only way to get the payments truly affordable is to have high deductables, which means if you go to the doctor a lot for small things (most of which won't exceed the deductable), then you are paying out of pocket for most of those. On top of already having to pay out of pocket for most of your care (which you would have to do if you didn't have insurance), you are also forced to pay for the insurance, so instead of costing people less, it's actually costing people more.
If you opt for reasonable deductables, then the plans are MUCH less affordable. Basically, it seems the insurance companies have managed to massage this whole thing into just a government mandated requirement for you to get and keep insurance.
The Nexus 7, like the Nook, has a 'special' charging USB cable that can carry more current. The plug-in part is slightly longer. When i use normal phone chargers on my Nexus 7 it takes a lot longer to charge.
The tip of the cable being slightly longer is to accommodate the curve on the edge of the N7. A cable being able to carry more current makes no difference if the power source is the same (ie. a USB port on your PC).
Everyone else seems to always forget that cable used to advertise itself as one of the advantages is that there were no commericials. Now the cable companies rape you for more money than ever and all the channels have tons of commercials...
When I was growing up in Texas, when cable was first taking off, I remember commercials for Rogers Cable where they would pose the question "Why would anyone PAY for TV?!?" and the big answer to that question was "No commercials".
I pay quite enough for Cable TV that I consider it my prerogative to switch channels during commercials, or skip them on the DVR. I'm sorry that the OTA channels are feeling like they're being ripped off, but most of them are owned in whole or part by large media groups, who make quite enough money from the premium channel packages I pay for.