Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Look ma!
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
ProfGast
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11494729

Projector hooked up to a phone! Commlink + AR glasses much?
SleepIncarnate
Yes, because shining light into your eyes is a wonderful idea.
ProfGast
QUOTE (SleepIncarnate @ Oct 8 2010, 08:50 PM) *
Yes, because shining light into your eyes is a wonderful idea.

How else do you suggest doing it? Our eyes, last I checked, are organs specifically designed to detect light.

SR AR is probably the same unless you project it directly into the brain through DNI. In which case you're sending electrical signals into the brain. Which is also probably not completely healthy.
SleepIncarnate
I always pictured it more as a holographic image coming up on the screen in SR, but they never do go much into detail about it. This is why I play TM's, not gonna go blind with AR here my friend.
KarmaInferno
Can you see anything right now?

Yes?

Guess what, light is shining into your eyes.




-k
SleepIncarnate
Yes, but the point I'm making is that shining a light directly into your eyes can also damage them. You know how they always tell you not to stare into the sun, or look into a laser pointer? That's this in action. Heck, even softer lights, like a flash light or LED light, can damage the eyes if pointed directly into the eye too long. Why do you think your eyes start to sting when someone shines a flashlight in your eyes? Shine a light, no matter how soft, directly into your eyes long enough and it will damage them. Our eyes work primarily based on indirect light, i.e. not looking into the source. But if someone were to wear and use those glasses on the level that people in SR use AR, well, you get the idea, they would start having vision problems.
Mayhem_2006
QUOTE (SleepIncarnate @ Oct 9 2010, 08:54 AM) *
Shine a light, no matter how soft, directly into your eyes long enough and it will damage them.


No matter how soft? Really? REALLY?

I don't think you know wht you are talking about...

Incidentally, ever seen any evidence of actual eye damage caused by too much TV or too much computer time? Because, that, basically, is shining light into your eyes.
SleepIncarnate
Of being too close to it? Yes. Of course, every person's eyes are different, some people start losing eyesight from reading in dimly lit rooms, others don't. Some people stare into the sun regularly and are fine, others did it too much as a kid and always see spots now. But the reason your eyes start to hurt when you're too close to a source of light, or it's too bright, or too strong, is your body's way of telling you that's bad. Go put your face up to a TV or computer monitor (an actual older one, not the newer LCD flat panels) and see how long it takes until your eyes hurt. Or better yet, for a good comparison to how these glasses work, go stand in front of a projector.
KarmaInferno
Technically, pretty much all permanent damage to eyes from light is really from the ultraviolet or infrared components, or direct thermal heating.

If you can cut those out, the WORST that will happen is in cases of severely bright light you can get temporary retinal bleaching, but that will go away.

I have to assume the system in question does not, in fact, use "severely bright light".




-k
hobgoblin
While i would like for the screen to be transparent, so that one could really make use of AR overlays to reality, this is the smallest setup i have seen in years. Earlier versions have had big blogs stuck to the outside of the glasses in comparison.

And AR in SR can be many thing, physically. It can be piped directly to the brain via simsense (using trodes or a datajack). It can be displayed via contacts, glasses or goggles. Or it can be displayed via holo proejctors, trid or flat screen displays. All of that is AR in one shape or another.

What AR boils down to is not how it is displayed, but that the devices and information channels are location aware. That is, where your standing will have as much to say about the results of a data search as what you are searching for. Search for some product, and stores with it in stock may show up first. And sorted by proximity and price no less.

AR knows where you are, what your looking at, what you hear, maybe even what you smell or taste, and can automatically bring up data relevant to that. A rigger may have AR overlays while working on a drone or vehicle, telling him step by step what to do to get that part out (including things like floating animations and spoken instructions). This in comparison to say a fluid stained book of static images and text. He probably can take a step back, and give the vehicle a start command via AR as well, getting relevant data in real time about part performance for a multitude of sensors placed in relevant locations on top of the engine he is looking at.
Mayhem_2006
QUOTE (SleepIncarnate @ Oct 9 2010, 09:11 AM) *
Of being too close to it? Yes. Of course, every person's eyes are different, some people start losing eyesight from reading in dimly lit rooms, others don't.
Some people stare into the sun regularly and are fine, others did it too much as a kid and always see spots now. But the reason your eyes start to hurt when you're too close to a source of light, or it's too bright, or too strong, is your body's way of telling you that's bad. Go put your face up to a TV or computer monitor (an actual older one, not the newer LCD flat panels) and see how long it takes until your eyes hurt. Or better yet, for a good comparison to how these glasses work, go stand in front of a projector.


MYTH: Reading in dim or poor light is harmful to your eyes, may ruin them, or may cause you to need eyeglasses.
TRUTH: Your eyes are not harmed by reading in dim light. They may get tired because of the extra effort it takes to see clearly, but no damage will occur.

MYTH: Prolonged viewing of computer screens damages your eyes.
TRUTH: There is no scientific evidence that any permanent damage to your eyes can occur in this way.

MYTH: Sitting too close to the TV set is bad for your eyes. To keep from damaging your eyes, view television is a dark room with only a small lamp on top of the set.
TRUTH: Whether the room is dark or lighted, or whether the light is in front of or behind you, is a matter of personal preference and comfort. It will not make any difference to the health of your eyes.

Excerpted from Taking Care of Your Eyes: A Collection of the Patient Education Handouts Used by America's Leading Eye Doctors. Triad Communications. Inc.
nezumi
What's really dangerous is shining light out from your eyes. (Bet you can't find an faq debunking that.)

My wife points out that just what we need is people doing AR while they're driving. I think this technology should perhaps be put on the back burner until we get smarter cars.
hobgoblin
Depends, if it provides data relevant to the driving, it would pretty much behave like the HMD of a modern fighter jet. Consider if it was linked into some kind of IR or radar in the front of the car, to provide assistance in poor visibility scenarios.
Christian Lafay
Or if it was hooked up to a GPS thingamajig to draw the line on the road in front of you. No more having the GPS blocking a part of your windshield or having to try and eye it out the corner of your eye. Wasn't there a car that tried a HUD awhile back? With night vision and everything?
hobgoblin
I know a recent Mercedes, or similar, has a IR camera and a screen in the dash, don't know about a hud tho.

Even having road lines projected in ones field of view, especially at winter, could be highly useful.
Fyndhal
QUOTE (SleepIncarnate @ Oct 9 2010, 12:54 AM) *
Yes, but the point I'm making is that shining a light directly into your eyes can also damage them. You know how they always tell you not to stare into the sun, or look into a laser pointer? That's this in action. Heck, even softer lights, like a flash light or LED light, can damage the eyes if pointed directly into the eye too long. Why do you think your eyes start to sting when someone shines a flashlight in your eyes? Shine a light, no matter how soft, directly into your eyes long enough and it will damage them. Our eyes work primarily based on indirect light, i.e. not looking into the source. But if someone were to wear and use those glasses on the level that people in SR use AR, well, you get the idea, they would start having vision problems.


Thus creating a market for Cybereyes. I fail to see how Aztechnology or Saeder-Krupp would find this a problem. smile.gif
hobgoblin
only to find that the implants have side effects of their own wink.gif
Dakka Dakka
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Oct 9 2010, 09:20 PM) *
only to find that the implants have side effects of their own wink.gif
From which they can profit again devil.gif
Mayhem_2006
QUOTE (Dakka Dakka @ Oct 9 2010, 09:09 PM) *
From which they can profit again devil.gif


By selling you anti-rejection drugs.

Which also have side effects...
nezumi
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Oct 9 2010, 08:16 AM) *
Depends, if it provides data relevant to the driving, it would pretty much behave like the HMD of a modern fighter jet. Consider if it was linked into some kind of IR or radar in the front of the car, to provide assistance in poor visibility scenarios.


Regardless, as long as it has the ability to IM and watch porn, you know what they'll be focusing on.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (nezumi @ Oct 10 2010, 02:01 AM) *
Regardless, as long as it has the ability to IM and watch porn, you know what they'll be focusing on.

That's why i welcome the self-driving car.
Christian Lafay
QUOTE (nezumi @ Oct 10 2010, 01:01 AM) *
Regardless, as long as it has the ability to IM and watch porn, you know what they'll be focusing on.

Darwinism strikes again!
Mr. Mage
I read through all these posts and notice so many people debating about the health aspects and possible dangers of such technology, and all I can think is " I WISH I WERE IN JAPAN RIGHT NOW!"

and just a note to everyone who thinks this will cause health problems: It might, but so do cigarettes, and they're still here...
hobgoblin
QUOTE (Mr. Mage @ Oct 10 2010, 10:30 PM) *
I read through all these posts and notice so many people debating about the health aspects and possible dangers of such technology, and all I can think is " I WISH I WERE IN JAPAN RIGHT NOW!"


meh, i would settle for more of the world turning akihabara.

QUOTE
and just a note to everyone who thinks this will cause health problems: It might, but so do cigarettes, and they're still here...

And if it was not for the deep pockets of the industry, would have been banned as a useless health risk long ago.
Sesix
QUOTE (nezumi @ Oct 9 2010, 08:07 AM) *
What's really dangerous is shining light out from your eyes. (Bet you can't find an faq debunking that.)


At 1:23
nezumi
QUOTE (Christian Lafay @ Oct 10 2010, 12:41 PM) *
Darwinism strikes again!


I'm not quite as worried about the people who can afford $1,000 toys and $20,000 cars with full air bags and reinforced passenger compartments as I am about the pedestrians and drivers around them.

Stupid people have a tremendous survivability factor which the people around them sometimes lack.
SecGuard
QUOTE (Christian Lafay @ Oct 9 2010, 04:22 PM) *
Or if it was hooked up to a GPS thingamajig to draw the line on the road in front of you. No more having the GPS blocking a part of your windshield or having to try and eye it out the corner of your eye. Wasn't there a car that tried a HUD awhile back? With night vision and everything?



BMW, its been on Top Gear, also they have a test model with a GPS directed auto-pilot, that to has been on Top Gear.
ProfGast
On that Note... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11508351
Google tests autodriving cars in California. Only problem that cropped up was someone rear-ending their car lightly...
hobgoblin
The Google cars seems to have relied more on internal databases then external indicators for speed limits and such tho.
Christian Lafay
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Oct 11 2010, 08:41 AM) *
And if it was not for the deep pockets of the industry, would have been banned as a useless health risk long ago.


Why would we? We haven't banned candy bars. Or onion rings.
ProfGast
QUOTE (hobgoblin @ Oct 11 2010, 08:32 AM) *
The Google cars seems to have relied more on internal databases then external indicators for speed limits and such tho.

Isn't that what GridGuide™ is?
hobgoblin
QUOTE (ProfGast @ Oct 11 2010, 09:22 PM) *
Isn't that what GridGuide™ is?

i guess so, augmented with on the fly wireless updates.
hobgoblin
QUOTE (Christian Lafay @ Oct 11 2010, 08:52 PM) *
Why would we? We haven't banned candy bars. Or onion rings.

Both have a (small) nutritional value. Hell, a candy bar may save a diabetics life from time to time.
nezumi
Don't question the influence of the Chocolate Lobby.
Blade
QUOTE (nezumi @ Oct 12 2010, 04:03 PM) *
Don't question the influence of the Chocolate Lobby.

It has delicious arguments.
Christian Lafay
QUOTE (Blade @ Oct 12 2010, 03:12 PM) *
It has delicious arguments.

And the payoffs are sweet. Still doesn't make any more sense then Big Tobacco or Not Quite As Big As Big Tobacco But Still Pretty Large So Don't Think Otherwise Alcohol.
jakephillips
QUOTE (nezumi @ Oct 9 2010, 07:07 AM) *
What's really dangerous is shining light out from your eyes. (Bet you can't find an faq debunking that.)

My wife points out that just what we need is people doing AR while they're driving. I think this technology should perhaps be put on the back burner until we get smarter cars.


Like the new google cars that drive themselves?
Or fighter planes that use HUD tech and have used it for years.
Doc Chase
QUOTE (nezumi @ Oct 12 2010, 02:03 PM) *
Don't question the influence of the Chocolate Lobby.


Just what we need. S'more lobbyists. They're only contributing to the decay of society.
SecGuard
Society's overrated anyway.
Doc Chase
QUOTE (SecGuard @ Oct 13 2010, 07:04 PM) *
Society's overrated anyway.


Which is why they need to shake it up some. Maybe have a bloody sundae.
Mayhem_2006
Sadly, people are apparently dumb enough to be using smartphones whilst driving even without an AR visor...

"Over a fifth of drivers check social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter whilst behind the wheel, research has shown."

http://www.itpro.co.uk/627643/fifth-of-mot...ia-when-driving
hobgoblin
http://www.ubergizmo.com/15/archives/2010/...f_a_button.html

self-driving taxi wink.gif
Rayzorblades
QUOTE (Mayhem_2006 @ Oct 13 2010, 10:29 PM) *
Sadly, people are apparently dumb enough to be using smartphones whilst driving even without an AR visor...

"Over a fifth of drivers check social networking sites like Facebook and Twitter whilst behind the wheel, research has shown."

http://www.itpro.co.uk/627643/fifth-of-mot...ia-when-driving


Over a fifth of drivers should be involuntarily euthanized.

Also, what the hell are the point of lobbyists? I'm not a polisci major so I really don't know. Do they just bully the government into passing favourable or not passing unfavourable legislation? Unless my understanding is wrong, how the hell can that even exist?
hobgoblin
Supposedly they are there to inform and remind politicians about issues. One way to look at them would be as humanoid megaphones.

Problem is that the deep pockets of corporations, and certain individuals, allow them bigger megaphones then the common joe.
Rayzorblades
Ah thanks. I guess what bugs me is since when is the government open to debate? I mean they might meely-mouth over certain issues here and there, but when they put their foot down that's it.

It's my understanding (which could be flawed since I'm not a yank and I have no concrete figures) that the majority of Americans didn't want to go back into Iraq and start a war, but the government did it anyway.

Lobbying just seems to me to be like a way of legalizing bribery, blackmail, and other strong arm tactics.
KarmaInferno
QUOTE (Rayzorblades @ Oct 17 2010, 03:47 PM) *
Ah thanks. I guess what bugs me is since when is the government open to debate? I mean they might meely-mouth over certain issues here and there, but when they put their foot down that's it.


In the US, it's ALWAYS up for debate.

That's the whole point of democracy. Everyone gets a say.

Every person in power is put there by their local citizenry, and whether or not they get to keep that job is up to that citizenry.

So it is wise for those people in power to listen to the people that cast the votes in elections.

Of course, this is complicated by the fact that getting elected is an expensive process, and there are groups willing to donate large sums of money towards certain candidates, with the expectation that those donations will be reciprocated with a willingness to see things their way.

There were a large number of anti-war folks.

The thing is, and this is what a lot of folks including the media at the time [edit]missed[/edit], there were also a lot of pro-war folks.

And the pro-war folks happened to have their candidates in power at the time.



-k
hobgoblin
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Oct 17 2010, 10:05 PM) *
The thing is, and this is what a lot of folks including the media at the time, there were also a lot of pro-war folks.

That is perhaps the sad thing. Media have become much more overtly biased, while at the same time loudly proclaiming their supposed neutrality.

As such, the supposed 4th power have gone from reporting on the activities of others to attempting to direct public opinion. And so by proxy direct the decisions made.
Christian Lafay
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Oct 17 2010, 09:05 PM) *
In the US, it's ALWAYS up for debate.

That's the whole point of democracy. Everyone gets a say.

Every person in power is put there by their local citizenry, and whether or not they get to keep that job is up to that citizenry.

So it is wise for those people in power to listen to the people that cast the votes in elections.

Of course, this is complicated by the fact that getting elected is an expensive process, and there are groups willing to donate large sums of money towards certain candidates, with the expectation that those donations will be reciprocated with a willingness to see things their way.

There were a large number of anti-war folks.

The thing is, and this is what a lot of folks including the media at the time [edit]missed[/edit], there were also a lot of pro-war folks.

And the pro-war folks happened to have their candidates in power at the time.

-k


But it seems that most pro-war folks are so out of ignorance. Not all of them, obviously, but enough to be shocking. Those that either aren't sure who we are fighting or why but they must be bad because the govt tells me so, ala 1984, and those that believe that we can still be a war economy and that fighting will fix the budget. These crocodile tears or "Let's not forget 9/11" should have long since dried up. Japan, as a mass, has forgotten August 6th and August 9th enough for open trade to be established. Why can't we be similar?

And I'm still waiting for my vote to count in a presidential election.
AKWeaponsSpecialist
Erm, could we return this to the fascinating discussion about the possibilities of proto-AR tech? This looks like it's in danger of getting shut down or sparking into a flame war, and I'd hate for either to happen.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012