> Children under about 10-12 shouldn't be exposed to any artificial stereoscopy
Citation needed. But I'll do a bit more than just complain about your blind assertion... folks should check out web stories about Sega's experiences in the 1990s:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/2059205/3D-Displays-May-Be-Hazardous-To-Young-Children
http://markpesce.posterous.com/split-screen-how-safe-is-3d-tv-screen-play-di
Ah... and here's the Slashdot coverage of it from earlier this year:
http://science.slashdot.org/story/10/06/26/2059205/3D-Displays-May-Be-Hazardous-To-Young-Children
Sega pulled an earlier 3D product in the mid 90s because problems were observed in kids who used the device frequently. Took me forever to find links right now -- it used to be easy to pull up the documents about this on Google, but as of today, all the keywords point at today's announcement. This is the problem with relying upon Google to remember things for me.
But I did find one article about it finally:
Search within this article for "Sega"
http://markpesce.posterous.com/split-screen-how-safe-is-3d-tv-screen-play-di
There are a number of write ups about Sega's experience, and that experience is what is spawning a lot of the concern from Sony and Nintendo.
he can literally say "this is bullshit guys, you must treat people of all sexual orientations equally"
No, he can't. He couldn't.
Clinton tried to do that -- to do exactly what Truman did on race. He announced before taking office his intent to declare that gays could serve openly. In response, Congress passed the Don't Ask Don't Tell legislation to tie the president's hands. And they told Clinton, "You will sign it or we have enough votes to put through a veto-proof version that increases instead of decreases the investigations into military personnel.
You can read the full history here: https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Don't_ask,_don't_tell
All it takes is just one tribble.
"When Danger was acquired, Pink was already a going concern but had no engineering staff. Microsoft discovered that Danger had unbreakable contractual obligations that meant they couldn't turn us into warm bodies working on Pink, so they staffed up internally," the source reported. "By the time Danger engineering became available to work on Pink a year later, innumerable bad decisions had already been made by clueless idiots."
The source also claims the Pink project was failing because of a management decision to include UMTS and CDMA phones in the same form factor, a technical nightmare."
> [btw, the Big Bang theory has an amazing number of failed predictions]
Citation needed.
It's not the same as saying "God doesn't allow it." It could simply be "under the laws of physics, no such machine can ever be constructed successfully." The theory doesn't require any active player in the game pushing back on the LHC. The theory is just suggesting a pressure, if you'll allow the analogy, that holds back any such particle generation, and if you "compress" the probability of success enough, it pops back forcefully. What the theory is suggesting is that no amount of good design can make this work, in the same way that no amount of jumping is going to launch a person into Earth orbit -- the universe doesn't allow it.
An Ada exception is when a routine gets in trouble and says 'Beam me up, Scotty'.
