30 Oct
2006
30 Oct
'06
10:51 a.m.
On Mon, 2006-10-30 at 04:52 -0600, Jules Richardson wrote:
Hmm, interesting to guess where things might go. If
the retina thing doesn't
happen I expect roll-up flexible keyboards and displays might become the norm.
That or two 'sticks' on an X-Y axis could be used to read finger positions and
to either project a display image or an image of a keyboard matrix.
Don't discount voice recognition and holographic display... Both of
them are less intrusive, and require less mental mapping, than keyboards
and roll-up displays.
Possibly. But I wonder if the human brain's
designed to cope (or can be
trained to cope) with such things. Human biology is often something that
gadget designers forget at the expense of making things ever smaller, faster,
clearer. As an example, I can't stand watching TV on an LCD display because to
my eyes it looks *too* crisp and sharp, resulting in something which looks
unnatural to me even though it's technically so much 'better' than a CRT.
Of COURSE the human brain is designed for that. How about reality?
The real world is ever so much more complex, intricate, and detailed
than our sensory receptors. More data can be provided than can be
absorbed, and filed, as well.
As to your stated distaste for clearer pictures, I cannot shoehorn
any physical explanation for that into the situation, or vice versa.
Unless you are viewing atrocious subject matter, which is better the
less of it that one sees, I can only think of psychological reasons for
not liking the increased resolution. Are you more comfortable thinking
of Pi as "about three?" Do you prefer a Close-and-Play to a hi-fi
system? Or, considering context, is it simply that you like older
technology, irrespective of the abilities? Und, how lonk haff you velt
zis way aboot yor muzzer? <laughing>
Of course I don't think that most consumers
thin[k] of such things - they lap up
the marketing hype and then live with the consequences without even thinking
about them (particularly where the longevity of a product is concerned)
If there really *IS* an improvement in picture quality, as you
describe above, (there is) then it is NOT hype. Even the SYSTEM is
better, when compared with NTSC or, in your case, PAL video, which place
an upper limit on quality. Oh, sure, a real improvement can be hyped,
but you imply "only hype" by your statement here. And, as to longevity,
only time will tell. I still have (platonic) love for my old IMSAI and
Monroe computers, but I don't hate the immensely more powerful Pentium
descendant powering the Linux system I'm using to write this... I use
it, and enjoy it, even if it is more complex than I can easily
understand. Quite a few people have spent quite a few years making it
easy to use such advanced technology, even if I don't understand it
fully.
Further, if anything, I dislike older displays with poor resolution,
because they tended to give me a headache. The poorest resolution
(besides my phone) screen I have is on my Monroe, and that is quite
exceptionally clear and stable, albeit monochromatic. The scree clarity
is one of the reasons I was drawn to the Monroe in the first place -- I
could write without getting a headache.
Peace,
Warren E. Wolfe
wizard at voyager.net