Forgot your password?
Cyhist Mar 13 1997 E
Document Actions
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 1997 16:53:56 -0800
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Bob Bickford <rab@WELL.COM>
Subject: Re: CYHIST Digest - 8 Mar 1997 to 9 Mar 1997
X-cc: andrew stellman <roo@ANON.RAZORWIRE.COM>, rab@smtp.well.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
andrew stellman wrote:
>i don't see why you're placing this restriction on the definition of "3-d display". and i'd hasten to add that how you move your head or walk around has nothing to do with the display; you're referring to the input device, and an input device has nothing to do with a display system. it would be like saying that a monitor doesn't count as a display device if it doesn't come with a mouse.
This is such a bizarre non-sequitur that I have to assume that I was somehow unclear in my original comments. The person to whom I was responding had asked a question about display systems that implicitly relied upon image fusion in two human eyes to achieve what he called a three-dimensional display. I pointed out that this is properly called a stereoscopic display, precisely because it relies upon the human neural system connected to the eyes to merge and fuse the two separate display images, and that therefore the displays themselves cannot properly be described as three-dimensional.
I realize that we often refer to any display that uses three-dimensional data to render a two-dimensional image which exhibits correct perspective, as a "three-dimensional display", but that is really a completely different usage of the term: in that case, we're referring to the characteristics of the data represented by what appears on the monitor, not the characteristics of the actual display device itself. I was discussing the latter, as was the person to whom I responded; your comments appear to completely confuse and conflate the two. Also, the use of the phrase "input device" with reference to the recipient of the information presented by a display device strikes me as bizarre in the extreme, and I have no idea what you could possibly mean by such a construction.
--
Bob Bickford rab@well.com
"So I asked him which part of the reality of ending drug prohibition is it
that worries him -- is it the end of the drive-by shootings, the end of the gang warfare, or will he miss having schoolchildren terrorized out on the playground?" --- Jo Jorgensen, 1996 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate
______________________________________________________________________
Reply-To: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> Sender: "CYHIST Community Memory: Discussion list on the History of
Cyberspace" <CYHIST@MAELSTROM.STJOHNS.EDU> From: Bob Bickford <rab@WELL.COM>
Subject: Re: CYHIST Digest - 8 Mar 1997 to 9 Mar 1997
X-cc: andrew stellman <roo@ANON.RAZORWIRE.COM>, rab@smtp.well.com
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
______________________________________________________________________
Community Memory: Discussion List on the History of Cyberspace ______________________________________________________________________
andrew stellman wrote:
>i don't see why you're placing this restriction on the definition of "3-d display". and i'd hasten to add that how you move your head or walk around has nothing to do with the display; you're referring to the input device, and an input device has nothing to do with a display system. it would be like saying that a monitor doesn't count as a display device if it doesn't come with a mouse.
This is such a bizarre non-sequitur that I have to assume that I was somehow unclear in my original comments. The person to whom I was responding had asked a question about display systems that implicitly relied upon image fusion in two human eyes to achieve what he called a three-dimensional display. I pointed out that this is properly called a stereoscopic display, precisely because it relies upon the human neural system connected to the eyes to merge and fuse the two separate display images, and that therefore the displays themselves cannot properly be described as three-dimensional.
I realize that we often refer to any display that uses three-dimensional data to render a two-dimensional image which exhibits correct perspective, as a "three-dimensional display", but that is really a completely different usage of the term: in that case, we're referring to the characteristics of the data represented by what appears on the monitor, not the characteristics of the actual display device itself. I was discussing the latter, as was the person to whom I responded; your comments appear to completely confuse and conflate the two. Also, the use of the phrase "input device" with reference to the recipient of the information presented by a display device strikes me as bizarre in the extreme, and I have no idea what you could possibly mean by such a construction.
--
Bob Bickford rab@well.com
"So I asked him which part of the reality of ending drug prohibition is it
that worries him -- is it the end of the drive-by shootings, the end of the gang warfare, or will he miss having schoolchildren terrorized out on the playground?" --- Jo Jorgensen, 1996 Libertarian Vice-Presidential candidate
______________________________________________________________________
