 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:42:53 +0200, andrel wrote:
>
>>> Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took
>>> pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the
>>> reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's not
>>> uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a
>>> "spoke" pattern outside the pupil area.
>> I think that also the white of the eye may transmit more. [..]
>
> Possibly.
Drawing from what I heard from someone studying scattering of light in
the eye. People with less pigment had more light coming in from all
sides than people with more pigment. i.e. blue eyed people having more
problems with headlight of cars approaching.
>
>
>>> but her brain doesn't have enough practice at calculating the distance
>>> of an object moving based on those two reference points, and as a
>>> result, she has very poor eye-hand coordination when it comes to
>>> catching something thrown in her direction, because in order to figure
>>> out how far away something is, she actually has to think about it,
>>> while those who don't have the problem don't have to think about it.
>>> According to her doctor, it comes back to things not being hooked up
>>> correctly between the optics and the brain.
>> Makes sense. With the two images far away in disjoint parts of the
>> visual cortex it would be hard to combine the information. Hmm, I wonder
>> if the condition is more severe in man. IIRC the two halves of the brain
>> do communicate more in women.
>
> From the wikipedia article on OA, there are variants that affect men that
> don't affect women.
That's not what I meant. I meant that if the image of the left eye ends
up in the right visual cortex and vice versa, you need to communicate
between the two brain halves to match them. BTW I see now that the
problem with the optic nerve is only mentioned somewhere low on the
page. For some reason I remembered it as being quite common.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> Well, the thing is, even when using just one eye, if your brain has had
> practice at determining how far away stuff is, even with one eye you
> adjust and still have depth perception.
Binocular vision really doesn't help much past about 15 or 20 feet.
After that, it's size and relative velocities.
I read about this (supposedly true) tribe of natives that lived in the
Amazon jungles forever. When taken out onto the plains, they thought the
explorers were magicians, because they could make the cows the size of
flies. Apparently, they'd never learned how perspective works as they'd
never been able to see more than 20 feet thru the jungle in a straight
line. (Couldn't say whether the story was true, but it's supposed to be.)
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
"That's pretty. Where's that?"
"It's the Age of Channelwood."
"We should go there on vacation some time."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 03 May 2008 00:39:27 +0200, andrel wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Fri, 02 May 2008 23:42:53 +0200, andrel wrote:
>>
>>>> Oh, we both have found it very fascinating - her ophthalmologist took
>>>> pictures of her eyes - most people you get a bright center (from the
>>>> reflection off the retina), but for those with this condition, it's
>>>> not uncommon for the iris to "leak" light and for the photo to show a
>>>> "spoke" pattern outside the pupil area.
>>> I think that also the white of the eye may transmit more. [..]
>>
>> Possibly.
> Drawing from what I heard from someone studying scattering of light in
> the eye. People with less pigment had more light coming in from all
> sides than people with more pigment. i.e. blue eyed people having more
> problems with headlight of cars approaching.
Yes, I can vouch for that (I have blue eyes). My wife's eyes are sort of
a grey/hazel colour, but the pigment is not uniform, which creates the
spoke pattern.
>> From the wikipedia article on OA, there are variants that affect men
>> that don't affect women.
>
> That's not what I meant. I meant that if the image of the left eye ends
> up in the right visual cortex and vice versa, you need to communicate
> between the two brain halves to match them. BTW I see now that the
> problem with the optic nerve is only mentioned somewhere low on the
> page. For some reason I remembered it as being quite common.
Oh, yes, I see what you're saying now.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 02 May 2008 16:18:51 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>> Well, the thing is, even when using just one eye, if your brain has had
>> practice at determining how far away stuff is, even with one eye you
>> adjust and still have depth perception.
>
> Binocular vision really doesn't help much past about 15 or 20 feet.
> After that, it's size and relative velocities.
Yes, I thought I'd remembered hearing that somewhere as well. But for
those of us who have "normal" depth perception, just closing one eye
doesn't reproduce the effect because our brains "fill in the blanks".
But as you relate down below here, perhaps with a total change in
environment, that might change the cues enough that the disorientation
could create that effect.
> I read about this (supposedly true) tribe of natives that lived in the
> Amazon jungles forever. When taken out onto the plains, they thought the
> explorers were magicians, because they could make the cows the size of
> flies. Apparently, they'd never learned how perspective works as they'd
> never been able to see more than 20 feet thru the jungle in a straight
> line. (Couldn't say whether the story was true, but it's supposed to
> be.)
On the one hand, that makes some sense to me, but on the other hand,
surely they would have recognized that they were moving away from the
cows....
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Warp wrote:
> Mike Raiford <mra### [at] hotmail com> wrote:
>> ... that someone pulled a power cord for only $10, or that the "Super
>> hacker" is a fraud ...
>
>> http://thedailywtf.com/Articles/The-Super-Hacker.aspx
>
> What bothers me about that story is that it's not at all clear whether
> the "super hacker" was indeed a competent security analyst or just some
> opportunistic fraudster.
>
> In theory it could be either way: Sometimes hacking into a "secure"
> system is easier than people realize, and this experienced security
> analyst demonstrated in practice how it happens. Or maybe he was just
> an incompetent opportunist who got lucky.
>
Either way, doesn't management need to be aware of the possibility of
social engineering hacks? I recall reading that most security exploits
at major corporations involve social engineering.
...Chambers
www.pacificwebguy.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Eero Ahonen wrote:
>
>> Shapeshifting.
>
> Dude, what would you *use* that for? Really?
To shift shape :p.
>> Built-in cash printer.
>
> Yeah. Try that one. Now watch the value of your cash plummet. ;-) Life
> isn't that simple...
Yes, but... It would still be fun, right?
>> Telekinetics.
>
> Now _that_ would genuinely be useful. And also make crime detection
> essentially impossible...
Damn crime detection. Forget it, if it's the only power stopping me to
get new drinks from the fridge without getting up from this chair.
Wait... it isn't. Damn.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Mike Raiford wrote:
>
> Isn't that what dark adaptation is? Essentially your brain increases the
> amount of gain when there are low levels of light.
>
Yes, but it comes on after using the full set of the iris, so DOF is
already suppressed to minimum.
> > Manual focus possibility (both full and basic settings) for the
>> optical sensors.
>
> You can't do this? I've always been able to adjust the focal point of my
> eyes on command.
Partly yes, but automation shoots in with really slight bit of
distortion. Also notice that the basic setting possibility would
radically reduce the need for glasses in humanity.
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
>
> I think until it becomes impossible to use the magnetic cards with a
> signature, having chip & PIN won't help.
>
It makes a familiar clerk very useful (though not absolutely necessary)
;). If the card has a chip and it's overridden the system will make an
on-line check for the card.
OTOH, if you *do* have the familiar clerk (you know, one that's "in" the
operation with you) he (or she, naturally) can just write in the number
of the card and be ok as your false signature, if the bank account just
holds enough money to buy the stuff, in case of possible on-line check.
Like I said, only the number of the card is actually needed (though I
need to withdraw what I said - PIN is no use with just the card number).
--
Eero "Aero" Ahonen
http://www.zbxt.net
aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
In article <481b7864$1@news.povray.org>, voi### [at] devnull says...
> >> I was under the impression that your heart *can* recover from damage.
> >> Similarly, you can't regrow brain cells, but the brain has an impressi
ve
> >> capacity to reassign functions and regain normal functioning after
> >> fairly serious injury.
> >>
> > Well, actually, the brain can grow new cells, it just doesn't do so
> > much, and it wouldn't help in some cases, since the *data* is encoded
> > into the existing cells. It might, in theory, repair itself with new
> > tissue, but the result would tend to be a blank slate, with no means to
> > relearn the correct responses. Its likely that there is some genetic
> > markers that strongly inhibit new growth, precisely due to how it could
> > destabilize the existing pattern.
>
> I find it interesting that every single person's brain appears to be
> organised in roughly the same way. As in, there's a specific part of the
> brain that does function X, and it's in the same place in [almost]
> everybody's brain. Clearly much of the brain's structure must be
> hard-coded genetically or something.
>
> Anyway, as I was saying, apparently the brain has the capacity to move
> those functions of other regions in case of damage. To an impressive
> degree...
>
It can also retask those regions to other things, which is the cause of
phantom limb effects. Touch on the cheek is very "close" to where the
motor cortex for an arm is located, so lose the arm, the tissue retasks
to touch, and you get the "feeling" that your nonexistent arm is
touched, when your cheek is touched. Wackier bugs show up in people like
one women who went into uncontrollable sneezing every time she hit...
well, lets just say got real happy. More minor mis-wiring can cause
anything from minor auditory halucinations, vision errors, transposition
of colors with letters and words, and a whole list of other wacky stuff.
So yeah, there is a *general* framework that says X *should be* tasked
to motor skills, and linked via nerve networks to Y body part, but
beyond that, anything goes, and sometimes the diagram for which parts
connect to what, and how separated they are, get coffee spilled on it by
the Darwinian architect, and things get damn blury in those spots. lol
--
void main () {
if version = "Vista" {
call slow_by_half();
call DRM_everything();
}
call functional_code();
}
else
call crash_windows();
}
<A HREF='http://www.daz3d.com/index.php?refid=16130551'>Get 3D Models,
3D Content, and 3D Software at DAZ3D!</A>
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> It can also retask those regions to other things, which is the cause of
> phantom limb effects. Touch on the cheek is very "close" to where the
> motor cortex for an arm is located, so lose the arm, the tissue retasks
> to touch, and you get the "feeling" that your nonexistent arm is
> touched, when your cheek is touched. Wackier bugs show up in people like
> one women who went into uncontrollable sneezing every time she hit...
> well, lets just say got real happy. More minor mis-wiring can cause
> anything from minor auditory halucinations, vision errors, transposition
> of colors with letters and words, and a whole list of other wacky stuff.
> So yeah, there is a *general* framework that says X *should be* tasked
> to motor skills, and linked via nerve networks to Y body part, but
> beyond that, anything goes, and sometimes the diagram for which parts
> connect to what, and how separated they are, get coffee spilled on it by
> the Darwinian architect, and things get damn blury in those spots. lol
Heh. I was just thinking, you know... I've played with artificial neural
networks. [Which, admittedly, are pretty *loosely* based on biological
ones.] What the network does depends on how you train it. The same
network can carry out basically any possible task given the right
training, limited only by the number of neurons in the network. (That
puts an upper limit on how complicated the possible tasks can be.) But
human brains all seem to gravitate towards the exact same mode of
functioning. So it can't be a "blank sheet" to start with. Some of it
must be hard-wired somehow, otherwise each brain would configure itself
in a random way.
BTW, I find it amusing how they figured out how the brain works.
Apparently you can remove a living person's skull and prod their brain
with a small electrode, and see what it does to them. 0_0 Apparently
this isn't fatal, or even painful, since the brain itself is insensitive
to pain. [Surely your skull would hurt though??] Who the ****
volunteered for that one?!
(Perhaps it was the same person who volunveered for the study into the
common cold. They took a control group, and a group who had their feet
submerged in cold water for 4 hours a day. The latter group suffered
from more colds than the control group. WHY WOULD YOU VOLUNTEER FOR
THIS?!?!)
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
