I would take his claim as a hypothesis that requires further experimentation, not as bad science.
This is how science works. A scientist says, "I have a model that explains these phenomena in a way that agree with real-world data. It makes these predictions. Bring it." Then people collect data and do experiments to verify that the model and its predictions hold. Or, they discover discrepancies and refine that model.
The author has a model. He feels pretty confident about it. Now the science begins.
Link to Original Source
You have citations for this? I find that really surprising, and I'd like to read up on it. Almost everything I read that isn't on my computer monitor is in portrait mode. Narrow columns with lots of linebreaks. Books, magazines, comics, my e-ink kindle, you name it. The one exception is highway billboards.
Also, what exactly is meant by longer and shorter lines? It seems to me like there would be a range of line lengths that make for efficient reading, and going outside of that range in either direction, too short or too long, would result in decreased efficiency.
I've done a little bit of work in a related area, so I skimmed the paper (at the bottom of the first link,) and it's nowhere near as impressive and automagical as the video makes it seem. The user has to provide a mask distinguishing the object they are manipulating from the rest of the image, and then the user also has to provide the 3D model for the object! The model is then smoothed to better fit the original using the mask and the inferred illumination, textured using the image, and then popped out to be manipulated in 3D. Not to detract from how cool this all is, but the user is still doing a lot of the heavy lifting.
I bet a combination of the techniques in this paper and the techniques of multiple view geometry (which is where I've actually done a bit of work) would be considerably more impressive and automagical.
God, I wanted Sega Channel so much as a kid. All my friends at school had it, but I lived out in the sticks, where there wasn't cable.
Anyone else remember sega channel for sega genesis? i think 11.99 got me unlimited games on it for the month (granted i only recall 5-8 games on it at a time, and they would rotate every month) Seems like a much better price structure to me. 9.99 a month to play whatever limited rotating catalog is there
You pretty much just described Playstation+. Except it's $49.99 a year (or the $9.99 a month option if you're silly,) and although games are rotated out monthly, once they've been added to your account you can still download and play them as long as you're a member. If I were so inclined, I could go download and play a game that they rotated out of the service two years ago.
Nintendo must also contend with mobile games available on Apple and Google's app stores, which cost but a fraction of a Nintendo game.
Very few console gamers are buying cell phone games in favor of console games. Where Nintendo is competing with app stores is with its 3DS handheld, not really with the Wii U. I'm sure that's still contributing to the big N posting losses, but the summary makes it sound like Mario Kart 8 is losing out to Crappy Mobile Minecraft Clone no. 873.
My completely anecdotal non-scientific evidence is that girls interested in math, science, and tech were mostly discouraged by their peers. Communities to support girls and women pursuing tech are great and all, but I feel like for a lot of girls it's going to come down to one very simple question: do I get new hobbies, or do I get new friends? It wouldn't surprise me if a majority of girls choose the latter.
Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe things have changed since the decade or so since I was a high school student. Maybe it really was just my high school. But my suspicion is that this is still common, and ChickTech is going to have to find a way to solve the peer pressure problem.