Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. ×

Comment Re:Eye tracking problem? (Score 1) 52

Don't think so. It still uses the underlying display technology of a holographic display so in theory the display technology should have the ability to fully reconstruct the light field. The problem with this approach is it is computationally very expensive to compute the wavefront. Hopefully, the eye tracking is just to simplify this computational task and one could just track as many eyes as computational power allowed.

Comment Re:boring and not holographic (Score 1) 52

It may suggest they've figured out a way to efficiently compute the wavefront using eye tracking as a simplifying assumption. That could be useful since, rather than running into difficulty as the number of viewers increases, the technology would approach true holographic projection as the number of eyes tracked and computational power was increased.

Comment Anyone Know What Actualy Novelty Is Claimed? (Score 1) 52

The descriptions of the patent all seem to just describe a standard holographic display (look on wikipedia). You have a light source, a screen that either affects the amplitude or phase of the light, and then some lenses to properly display that light.

It was my understanding that the hard part has always been doing the light calculations in real time. Going from a 3D description of a scene to the wavefront passing through the screen isn't trivial.

Comment WTF? Not all attacks are covert (Score 1) 149

WTF Does he not even consider the possibility that the hacks aren't meant to be truly secret, merely deniable. It would hardly make a very effective threat/warning if the target didn't realize where the attack came from.

It wouldn't make much sense for Putin to say, "Nice democracy you have there. It would be a shame if something happened to it," if we believed the DNC hack came from the North Koreans.

Besides, we didn't want stuxnet attributed to us but that didn't able us to guarantee everyone believed someone else did it.

Comment New Problems Aren't Worse Problems (Score 1) 146

Sure, self-driving cars will frustrate us in new ways and it's always great to address potential issues prospectively.

However, just because you are used to all the frustrations and inconveniences of the current system and you're just thinking about the annoyances of self-driving cars for the first time doesn't mean the new annoyances are worse than the old.

Those of us who live on obscure streets or on divided streets have had to talk taxi drivers, friends and delivery people to our houses for years. GPS has made much of this easier but the whole complaint here is that google doesn't know exactly where every address is.

Yes, self-driving cars remove the option of talking the driver in despite the GPS error. But in the long run we are better off if we are forced to learn once that "Address X" will bring any visitors to our home rather than having to give them all directions. Not only is this an easy simple fix it actually forces us to do what we should have done a long time ago.

Comment This is Crap (Score 1) 267

We have nothing but pure guesswork to go on in estimating the probability that intelligent life will evolve from microscopic life over a given time frame and not much more to go on in estimating the probability of life arising in the first place.

Yes, I personally find the arguments that we aren't the only intelligent life in the universe compelling but suggesting that MATH tells us this is true is simply misleading. People whose prior probability that intelligent life evolves given a suitable planet is super low are perfectly justified in their beliefs.

Comment Re:A Rational Reaction To Irrational Beliefs (Score 1) 201

Except in most of the world the religious text isn't "a piece of literature"

If you grow up in most of the islamic world the idea that the Koran is just a piece of literature is literally unthinkable. In a society where it's not even legal (much less socially acceptable) to even suggest that the Koran isn't literally the message of a divine being it's not surprising that some fraction of people looking for coherent answers from the world choose to believe it rather than becoming secret skeptics.

The amount of literature you have read doesn't really enter into this if it's not even within the realm of consideration that your holy book is just another piece of literature.

Comment Re:A Rational Reaction To Irrational Beliefs (Score 1) 201

And what part of my comment suggested this wasn't the case.

I merely identified one way in which the gap between what people profess to believe and what they really believe can lead to harm.

I mentioned atheism because I think it is the most plausibly culturally acceptable/noticeable coherent belief system that doesn't easily support extremism. There is no logical reason you couldn't have a coherent religious belief system that did the same thing but such a system is unlikely to gain significant traction. Such a system would have to openly embrace the idea that belief isn't very important (better that people live a better life than they believe) and that reward in the next life doesn't trump outcomes in this life...views that are likely to be out-competed by more self-protective religious memes promising greater benefits to the faithful.

Comment Good Science Doesn't Justify Bad Philosophy (Score 1) 386

The fact that our brains can sometimes hide or disguise influences on our choices has nothing to do with free will.

Indeed, we've long known that factors we don't think are influencing our choices can indeed do so. For example, subconscious racism or classic experiments showing that people asked to choose between identical items will select the one on the right (and they make up reasons it's better). This experiment no more implicates free will than these well known facts.

The issue of free will has been explored at length in philosophy and doing a neat experiment doesn't give you special warrant to ignore these points. If one was familiar with the old doctrine of compatibilism (yes you can have free will and determinism because what determines your actions is your brain state which is you) it would be immediate that so long as you view the brain process which responds to the visual image as a part of the individual making the choice free will isn't called into question at all.

Yes, it's interesting that our choices can be realized in such a counter-intuitive way but don't try and over sell the result by claiming philosophical implications you haven't seriously thought through (or bothered to read the existing literature about)

Comment A Rational Reaction To Irrational Beliefs (Score 2) 201

Many of the posts here are either giving (a type of) science nerds crap for believing in overly simplistic ideologies or using this fact (which is hardly news) to support the terrorists are unislamic shtick (I have no problem defining terrorists out of "true" islam and emphasizing that anti-terrorist doesn't mean anti-islam but let's not pretend this has anything to do with one interpretation being right as a matter of historical interpretation and another wrong...no one really follows any historically correct interpretation,)

A more generous take on the matter is that people who go into engineering and the sciences are more likely to take belief systems at face value and follow out their logical consequences. I mean even take a fairly mainstream belief like belief in the correct god is essential to salvation and that salvation means the difference between an eternity of bliss and an eternity of suffering. If you *really* believe that then any decent person should be willing to bring about any amount of earthly suffering to convince just one more person to believe correctly since that earthly harm is surely outweighed by the difference between an eternity of bliss and an eternity of suffering.

The moral I take is that most people don't really whole heartedly believe what they profess. Instead they put social cues from their community over the implications of the faith they claim to believe. On the other hand even supposedly mainstream religious beliefs can encourage people who take these things seriously to search for a more coherent solution.

When atheism is a serious option things probably turn out pretty well but in a society where the only coherent narrative is being offered by extremists a small fraction of those looking for serious coherent answers will turn to them.

Comment Doppler Velocity and Uncorrelated Position Errors (Score 1) 131

The authors suggest that doppler velocity calculations should be immune to the kind of overestimation they claim sampling position measurements suffers from. I don't think this can be the case.

Let's first focus on what is wikipedia claims is the largest source of error: signal delay from the ionosphere. It seems reasonable to assume that this delay changes in a continuous manner with time. However, that means that the (non-shared) error introduced into position measurements as a result also shows up in the Doppler velocity estimations.

Indeed, one can think of Doppler velocity measurements as, at the theoretical limit of accuracy, being just another GPS measurement using the difference between the actual and expected number of wave creasts observed as the change in signal delay. Thus it would seem it would suffer the exact same problem as a sophisticated position sampling approach.

Non-continuous errors might be different, e.g., multi-path effects, but these should result in greater Doppler velocity errors than positional errors (the position error shouldn't be at most approximately the distance of the receiver from the source of the reflection while the Doppler velocity measurement could be totally reversed).

Am I missing something?

Comment Hypocripsy != Comprimise (Score 1) 191

While I do think hypocrisy is (unfortunately) politically essential it is not what Barney Frank is defending.

A legislator is perfectly able to vote for bills they personally don't think are good for the sake of political capital without being hypocritical. Yes, voters are dumb (and rationally ignorant) but voters understand the need for political compromise and legislators can certainly explain that they voted as they did as a compromise to achieve some more important goal. Indeed, this is exactly what Frank is doing.

Comment Great Idea (Score 1) 163

Now if they just pass laws which make sure that if you can prove you are trafficing in *fake* rhino horn you are off the hook for fraud (and their aren't any trafficking laws) it should be possible to drive the market for rhino horns out of existence.

Comment Screw Popularizations! (Score 1) 129

I have no doubt that the holographic principle is an interesting mathematical representation of certain physical laws. It is no doubt quite useful in solving certain problems and may even be suggestive of new phyisical theories.

However, it's just nonsense to get excited just because you know that the physical laws can be represented in fewer dimensions. OF COURSE THEY CAN. You can always code the information about any functions/distributions/whatever in n dimensional space in fewer dimensions. The holographic principle is just doing it in a way that isn't horribly ugly (probably preserves certain properties that aren't even mentioned in popularizations). In fact it's not at all uncommon for the information about the solution to some (class of) mathematical problems to be fully reflected in the behavior of that solution on some smaller dimensional part.

In short, while this may be quite interesting to the people actually doing the math if you aren't you certainly shouldn't pretend this gives you some deep insight into what the universe is "really" like.

Slashdot Top Deals

To get back on your feet, miss two car payments.

Working...