Some medical doubts when using 3D Vision
  4 / 5    
[quote="woz2601"][quote]People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.[/quote] It's from a fictional fantasy novel, but I read that book when I was a kid, and it has always seemed to be true to me.[/quote]There's one glaring problem with that statement: Every single person who reads it thinks they're somehow the exception, which suggests not only mass stupidity, but mass delusion. ;) [quote="Airion"][url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation[/url] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair[/url] A little radiation is fine, natural, and unavoidable. It's everywhere. Yes, it does damage DNA, but our bodies quite simply repair it. It's only very high levels of radiation that cause problems.[/quote]Don't you think that's a bit black & white? Our bodies also repair cancer cells and wounds. That doesn't stop the sensible person from tryring to minimise her contact with carcinogens and sharp objects. In the case of DNA, relying on it to always save the day seems naive, as DNA damage can be incredibly long-lasting: a smoker can quit, live a long life, and still pass on DNA damage to his grandchildren. I'm not arguing for or against radiation being bad. I'm just saying I wish people would stop throwing around simplistic arguments about it in a rush to convince people that they have the answers.
woz2601 said:
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.


It's from a fictional fantasy novel, but I read that book when I was a kid, and it has always seemed to be true to me.
There's one glaring problem with that statement: Every single person who reads it thinks they're somehow the exception, which suggests not only mass stupidity, but mass delusion. ;)

Airion said:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Background_radiation
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_repair

A little radiation is fine, natural, and unavoidable. It's everywhere. Yes, it does damage DNA, but our bodies quite simply repair it. It's only very high levels of radiation that cause problems.
Don't you think that's a bit black & white? Our bodies also repair cancer cells and wounds. That doesn't stop the sensible person from tryring to minimise her contact with carcinogens and sharp objects.

In the case of DNA, relying on it to always save the day seems naive, as DNA damage can be incredibly long-lasting: a smoker can quit, live a long life, and still pass on DNA damage to his grandchildren.

I'm not arguing for or against radiation being bad. I'm just saying I wish people would stop throwing around simplistic arguments about it in a rush to convince people that they have the answers.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#46
Posted 06/05/2014 05:17 AM   
[quote="Libertine"]Since when did radiation get the all clear? Isn't almost any amount of radiation capable of changing small elements of cells like DNA? There must be animals tests that confirm or deny that.[/quote]Lots of different kinds of radiation. Not all the same. Some are stopped by your skin, some aren't. Ionizing radiation occurs from high energy stuff, like gamma rays, x-rays, nuclear radiation. Cell phones, computers, and 3D Vision do not emit Ionizing Radiation. There are quite a lot of animal studies on non-ionizing radiation, and there is no statistically significant effect. That's where I get my hard line science from. If there were some effect, with almost 100 years of study, we would have seen it by now. EMF (non-ionizing) radiation at low doses is simply not a health risk. People tend to confuse the inherent lack of certainty with the scientific method with 'possible'. But as Volnaiskra notes, people will believe whatever they want to believe. I have no illusion that anyone will be swayed on the internet, the absolute best tool we have ever created to enhance confirmation bias. My goal is simply to get a few people to think about it. I learn new stuff here all the time, other open-minded people might find this interesting. @woz2601: Glad you found that amusing, that is indeed my goal. And to maybe get people to question the non-stop bad news and fear-mongering that we all get every day. You got 'bo3b' right- it's pronounced 'bob', the 3 is silent. :->
Libertine said:Since when did radiation get the all clear? Isn't almost any amount of radiation capable of changing small elements of cells like DNA? There must be animals tests that confirm or deny that.
Lots of different kinds of radiation. Not all the same. Some are stopped by your skin, some aren't.

Ionizing radiation occurs from high energy stuff, like gamma rays, x-rays, nuclear radiation.
Cell phones, computers, and 3D Vision do not emit Ionizing Radiation.

There are quite a lot of animal studies on non-ionizing radiation, and there is no statistically significant effect. That's where I get my hard line science from. If there were some effect, with almost 100 years of study, we would have seen it by now. EMF (non-ionizing) radiation at low doses is simply not a health risk. People tend to confuse the inherent lack of certainty with the scientific method with 'possible'.


But as Volnaiskra notes, people will believe whatever they want to believe. I have no illusion that anyone will be swayed on the internet, the absolute best tool we have ever created to enhance confirmation bias. My goal is simply to get a few people to think about it. I learn new stuff here all the time, other open-minded people might find this interesting.


@woz2601: Glad you found that amusing, that is indeed my goal. And to maybe get people to question the non-stop bad news and fear-mongering that we all get every day.

You got 'bo3b' right- it's pronounced 'bob', the 3 is silent. :->

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#47
Posted 06/05/2014 05:33 AM   
[quote="bo3b]@woz2601: Glad you found that amusing, that is indeed my goal. And to maybe get people to question the non-stop bad news and fear-mongering that we all get every day. [/quote]I dunno, Bob. You've gone all George Dubya on me and got me all scared of terrorists now. ;P But to get back on topic, I'm surprised no one commented on the photo I posted on page 1. Am I really the only one who thinks it's cool that our digital cameras can see things that we can't? Or was it common knowledge?
bo3b said:@woz2601: Glad you found that amusing, that is indeed my goal. And to maybe get people to question the non-stop bad news and fear-mongering that we all get every day.
I dunno, Bob. You've gone all George Dubya on me and got me all scared of terrorists now. ;P


But to get back on topic, I'm surprised no one commented on the photo I posted on page 1. Am I really the only one who thinks it's cool that our digital cameras can see things that we can't? Or was it common knowledge?

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#48
Posted 06/05/2014 05:55 AM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"][quote="woz2601"][quote]People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.[/quote]It's from a fictional fantasy novel, but I read that book when I was a kid, and it has always seemed to be true to me.[/quote]There's one glaring problem with that statement: Every single person who reads it thinks they're somehow the exception, which suggests not only mass stupidity, but mass delusion. ;)[/quote]Pretty much a true state of the human condition. Here is a truly excellent article on the Backfire Effect. I recommend that website for everyone interested in learning how we delude ourselves on a daily basis. [url]http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/[/url] [quote="Volnaiskra"]In the case of DNA, relying on it to always save the day seems naive, as DNA damage can be incredibly long-lasting: a smoker can quit, live a long life, and still pass on DNA damage to his grandchildren. I'm not arguing for or against radiation being bad. I'm just saying I wish people would stop throwing around simplistic arguments about it in a rush to convince people that they have the answers. [/quote]Really a terrific example of what I strongly argue against. There is absolutely no solid evidence that smoking can cause damage to your grandchildren, and yet the press has breathlessly reported that Greek study as straight up fact. Ignoring the researchers themselves who specifically stated that they had no evidence whatsoever that measurable DNA defects would actually cause any harm. Your statement about simplistic arguments suggests that you don't accept the scientific method. If that's true, then yeah, we will never agree.
Volnaiskra said:
woz2601 said:
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.
It's from a fictional fantasy novel, but I read that book when I was a kid, and it has always seemed to be true to me.
There's one glaring problem with that statement: Every single person who reads it thinks they're somehow the exception, which suggests not only mass stupidity, but mass delusion. ;)
Pretty much a true state of the human condition. Here is a truly excellent article on the Backfire Effect. I recommend that website for everyone interested in learning how we delude ourselves on a daily basis.

http://youarenotsosmart.com/2011/06/10/the-backfire-effect/


Volnaiskra said:In the case of DNA, relying on it to always save the day seems naive, as DNA damage can be incredibly long-lasting: a smoker can quit, live a long life, and still pass on DNA damage to his grandchildren.

I'm not arguing for or against radiation being bad. I'm just saying I wish people would stop throwing around simplistic arguments about it in a rush to convince people that they have the answers.
Really a terrific example of what I strongly argue against. There is absolutely no solid evidence that smoking can cause damage to your grandchildren, and yet the press has breathlessly reported that Greek study as straight up fact. Ignoring the researchers themselves who specifically stated that they had no evidence whatsoever that measurable DNA defects would actually cause any harm.

Your statement about simplistic arguments suggests that you don't accept the scientific method. If that's true, then yeah, we will never agree.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#49
Posted 06/05/2014 06:06 AM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"]Don't you think that's a bit black & white? Our bodies also repair cancer cells and wounds. That doesn't stop the sensible person from tryring to minimise her contact with carcinogens and sharp objects. [/quote] I'm sorry that sounded simplistic to you, I wanted to give a simple explanation for why the idea that all radiation is bad is too simplistic. It's not a reasonable goal to eliminate our exposure to [i]all[/i] radiation. We should worry about avoiding the more significant sources of radiation, rather than the miniscule ones. If one wants to avoid any unnecessary exposure, they should think about things like avoiding x-rays and limiting air travel. 3D Vision equipment should be well below the threshold to be worth anyone's worries. We get less exposure staying inside playing 3D games than we would if we went outside and took a walk or played sports. [i]And[/i] we're less healthy for it.
Volnaiskra said:Don't you think that's a bit black & white? Our bodies also repair cancer cells and wounds. That doesn't stop the sensible person from tryring to minimise her contact with carcinogens and sharp objects.


I'm sorry that sounded simplistic to you, I wanted to give a simple explanation for why the idea that all radiation is bad is too simplistic. It's not a reasonable goal to eliminate our exposure to all radiation. We should worry about avoiding the more significant sources of radiation, rather than the miniscule ones. If one wants to avoid any unnecessary exposure, they should think about things like avoiding x-rays and limiting air travel. 3D Vision equipment should be well below the threshold to be worth anyone's worries.

We get less exposure staying inside playing 3D games than we would if we went outside and took a walk or played sports. And we're less healthy for it.

#50
Posted 06/05/2014 06:17 AM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"][quote="woz2601"][quote]People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.[/quote] It's from a fictional fantasy novel, but I read that book when I was a kid, and it has always seemed to be true to me.[/quote]There's one glaring problem with that statement: Every single person who reads it thinks they're somehow the exception, which suggests not only mass stupidity, but mass delusion. ;)[/quote] That's the whole point though, isn't it? I mean, I agree with you, and I'll admit it; I too have sometimes thought that I'm somehow the exception, but doesn't that just prove the statement? [quote="bo3b"]You got 'bo3b' right- it's pronounced 'bob', the 3 is silent. :->[/quote] Thanks for the clarification! Honestly, I've always wondered. It's good to get the official word on the matter.
Volnaiskra said:
woz2601 said:
People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it's true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People's heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool.


It's from a fictional fantasy novel, but I read that book when I was a kid, and it has always seemed to be true to me.
There's one glaring problem with that statement: Every single person who reads it thinks they're somehow the exception, which suggests not only mass stupidity, but mass delusion. ;)


That's the whole point though, isn't it? I mean, I agree with you, and I'll admit it; I too have sometimes thought that I'm somehow the exception, but doesn't that just prove the statement?

bo3b said:You got 'bo3b' right- it's pronounced 'bob', the 3 is silent. :->


Thanks for the clarification! Honestly, I've always wondered. It's good to get the official word on the matter.

i7 4770k, Asus Maximus VI Hero, Corsair Vengeance 16GB, Asus Strix 970, Asus VG236H, Win 8

#51
Posted 06/05/2014 06:35 AM   
[quote="bo3b]Your statement about simplistic arguments suggests that you don't accept the scientific method. If that's true, then yeah, we will never agree.[/quote]I don't know how you got that impression. My statement was about some of the arguments being used on this thread, which were illogical (and surely not scientifically sound). OK, if evidence about that smoking thing is thin, then I retract that example and admit my mistake. But it doesn't change the validity of my point in the preceding paragraph, which it was only meant to support as an additional example. [quote="woz2601]That's the whole point though, isn't it? I mean, I agree with you, and I'll admit it; I too have sometimes thought that I'm somehow the exception, but doesn't that just prove the statement?[/quote]I guess so, though isn't it a kind of a catch 22 situation? If people are too stupid to know the truth, then how could the author be sure about that statement being true? How can you as a reader be sure about it? It's a simple statement, and almost every reader who reads that will think he understands the point and is therefore at least somewhat aware of his intellectual frailties.....yet if that were true, then surely that would invalidate the statement itself. It's almost like one of those logical paradoxes that is purposely unsolveable. The statement "people are stupid" is actually silly, and fundamentally invalid, because stupidity is relative. A dog is intelligent compared to a fly, and stupid compared to an adult human. Einstein is intelligent compared to you and I, and stupid compared to a (hypothetical but feasible) advanced race of beings from another galaxy or from our own evolutionary future. Saying "people are stupid" makes as much sense as saying "people are tall". Stupidity as a concept has no meaning without context, and it's literally impossible for most people to be stupid. You can only be meaningfully stupid if you're on the dumb end of the general human bell curve, which I guess would be the lower 20% or so of people. Yet that doesn't stop almost everyone from secretly thinking they're smarter than the average person, despite that being mathematically impossible. I really think that says more about human arrogance than it does about human intelligence.
bo3b said:Your statement about simplistic arguments suggests that you don't accept the scientific method. If that's true, then yeah, we will never agree.
I don't know how you got that impression. My statement was about some of the arguments being used on this thread, which were illogical (and surely not scientifically sound).

OK, if evidence about that smoking thing is thin, then I retract that example and admit my mistake. But it doesn't change the validity of my point in the preceding paragraph, which it was only meant to support as an additional example.


woz2601 said:That's the whole point though, isn't it? I mean, I agree with you, and I'll admit it; I too have sometimes thought that I'm somehow the exception, but doesn't that just prove the statement?
I guess so, though isn't it a kind of a catch 22 situation? If people are too stupid to know the truth, then how could the author be sure about that statement being true? How can you as a reader be sure about it?

It's a simple statement, and almost every reader who reads that will think he understands the point and is therefore at least somewhat aware of his intellectual frailties.....yet if that were true, then surely that would invalidate the statement itself. It's almost like one of those logical paradoxes that is purposely unsolveable.

The statement "people are stupid" is actually silly, and fundamentally invalid, because stupidity is relative. A dog is intelligent compared to a fly, and stupid compared to an adult human. Einstein is intelligent compared to you and I, and stupid compared to a (hypothetical but feasible) advanced race of beings from another galaxy or from our own evolutionary future.

Saying "people are stupid" makes as much sense as saying "people are tall". Stupidity as a concept has no meaning without context, and it's literally impossible for most people to be stupid. You can only be meaningfully stupid if you're on the dumb end of the general human bell curve, which I guess would be the lower 20% or so of people.

Yet that doesn't stop almost everyone from secretly thinking they're smarter than the average person, despite that being mathematically impossible. I really think that says more about human arrogance than it does about human intelligence.

ImageVolnaPC.com - Tips, tweaks, performance comparisons (PhysX card, SLI scaling, etc)

#52
Posted 06/05/2014 07:43 AM   
[quote="andysonofbob"]Soz, I went all paternal. I agree with you, with regard to screen watching, 3D is probably the LEAST WORST option as opposed to being "most likely GOOD for your eyes, especially those of children". I definitely believe 3D is shockingly bad for children's eyes. With respect, I do think you're throwing up false arguments when you are comparing like for like. Hard chewy sweets are not *really* better for you than soft chewy sweets, just because you are exercising your jaw more when you eat them. That said, I love 3D gaming. My vision has benefited from going 3D from 2D. I went from needing to wear glasses when driving to not, each eye can now *just about* read license plates from the required distance. But then I recently went whale watching where I had to look at distant objects for an afternoon. My vision was VASTLY improved. Sure this may well have been a placebo effect but it was noticeable and I was quite excited about how sharp my vision was. At the end of the day 3D is most certainly NOT good for your eyes in any way, shape or form. It is great for gaming though! :P [/quote] What you are noticing with license plates and whalewatching is exactly what I described :). The muscles that you use to coordinate the movement of your eyes get a lot better with 3D because you're always adjusting for the convergence of your eyes. This means that those muscles get better at doing so, which means that your eyes will be better at both 'aiming' at the same target, especially at distance. You will most likely also notice better vision in dark surroundings, where you should see less 'noise' caused by your eyes not looking at the (exact) same spot. In regards to the candy comparison, I think that is a false comparison. With 2D your eyes are continuously converged on the depth of the screen, which means they get no exercise at all. A better comparison would be to say that eating candy is better for your jaw muscles than not eating at all. I do get your point in that candy is still bad for your teeth, and 3D is still bad for your eye lenses. But that is why i specifically mentioned the convergence muscles ;).
andysonofbob said:Soz, I went all paternal.

I agree with you, with regard to screen watching, 3D is probably the LEAST WORST option as opposed to being "most likely GOOD for your eyes, especially those of children". I definitely believe 3D is shockingly bad for children's eyes.

With respect, I do think you're throwing up false arguments when you are comparing like for like. Hard chewy sweets are not *really* better for you than soft chewy sweets, just because you are exercising your jaw more when you eat them.

That said, I love 3D gaming. My vision has benefited from going 3D from 2D. I went from needing to wear glasses when driving to not, each eye can now *just about* read license plates from the required distance.

But then I recently went whale watching where I had to look at distant objects for an afternoon. My vision was VASTLY improved. Sure this may well have been a placebo effect but it was noticeable and I was quite excited about how sharp my vision was.

At the end of the day 3D is most certainly NOT good for your eyes in any way, shape or form.

It is great for gaming though! :P



What you are noticing with license plates and whalewatching is exactly what I described :). The muscles that you use to coordinate the movement of your eyes get a lot better with 3D because you're always adjusting for the convergence of your eyes. This means that those muscles get better at doing so, which means that your eyes will be better at both 'aiming' at the same target, especially at distance.

You will most likely also notice better vision in dark surroundings, where you should see less 'noise' caused by your eyes not looking at the (exact) same spot.

In regards to the candy comparison, I think that is a false comparison. With 2D your eyes are continuously converged on the depth of the screen, which means they get no exercise at all.
A better comparison would be to say that eating candy is better for your jaw muscles than not eating at all. I do get your point in that candy is still bad for your teeth, and 3D is still bad for your eye lenses. But that is why i specifically mentioned the convergence muscles ;).

#53
Posted 06/05/2014 10:01 AM   
[quote="Volnaiskra]The statement "people are stupid" is actually silly, and fundamentally invalid, because stupidity is relative. A dog is intelligent compared to a fly, and stupid compared to an adult human. Einstein is intelligent compared to you and I, and stupid compared to a (hypothetical but feasible) advanced race of beings from another galaxy or from our own evolutionary future. Saying "people are stupid" makes as much sense as saying "people are tall". Stupidity as a concept has no meaning without context, and it's literally impossible for most people to be stupid. You can only be meaningfully stupid if you're on the dumb end of the general human bell curve, which I guess would be the lower 20% or so of people. Yet that doesn't stop almost everyone from secretly thinking they're smarter than the average person, despite that being mathematically impossible. I really think that says more about human arrogance than it does about human intelligence.[/quote] I speak to a lot stupid people. I've dealt with somewhere around 120,000 banking customers in the last 10 years answering queries by telephone and email, and its actually quite sad how many of those customers are more than willing to be angry, rude, insulting and ignorant as well as stupid. Common sense is sadly missing from large numbers of people, specially those who believe just because they exist they are superior to everyone else, who believe nothing bad can ever happen to them, and anyone they deem responsible should suffer - all whilst never taking any responsibility for their own actions. Stupidity is a broad term, but like Einstein once said "Only 2 things are truly infinite - the Universe and the stupidity of people - but I'm still not sure about the Universe". If people were all truly intelligent the world sincerely would be a better place.
Volnaiskra said:The statement "people are stupid" is actually silly, and fundamentally invalid, because stupidity is relative. A dog is intelligent compared to a fly, and stupid compared to an adult human. Einstein is intelligent compared to you and I, and stupid compared to a (hypothetical but feasible) advanced race of beings from another galaxy or from our own evolutionary future.

Saying "people are stupid" makes as much sense as saying "people are tall". Stupidity as a concept has no meaning without context, and it's literally impossible for most people to be stupid. You can only be meaningfully stupid if you're on the dumb end of the general human bell curve, which I guess would be the lower 20% or so of people.

Yet that doesn't stop almost everyone from secretly thinking they're smarter than the average person, despite that being mathematically impossible. I really think that says more about human arrogance than it does about human intelligence.


I speak to a lot stupid people. I've dealt with somewhere around 120,000 banking customers in the last 10 years answering queries by telephone and email, and its actually quite sad how many of those customers are more than willing to be angry, rude, insulting and ignorant as well as stupid.

Common sense is sadly missing from large numbers of people, specially those who believe just because they exist they are superior to everyone else, who believe nothing bad can ever happen to them, and anyone they deem responsible should suffer - all whilst never taking any responsibility for their own actions.

Stupidity is a broad term, but like Einstein once said "Only 2 things are truly infinite - the Universe and the stupidity of people - but I'm still not sure about the Universe".

If people were all truly intelligent the world sincerely would be a better place.

i7 4790k @ 4.6 - 16GB RAM - 2x SLI Titan X
27" ASUS ROG SWIFT, 28" - 65" Samsung UHD8200 4k 3DTV - Oculus Rift CV1 - 34" Acer Predator X34 Ultrawide

Old kit:
i5 2500k @ 4.4 - 8gb RAM
Acer H5360BD projector
GTX 580, SLI 670, GTX 980 EVGA SC
Acer XB280HK 4k 60hz
Oculus DK2

#54
Posted 06/05/2014 02:26 PM   
Heh! I love how pro-screen we all are here - NERDS! ;P @Jognt I am fairly sure it's still not yet the norm to stare at the screen. :) I think people are forgetting this. I know lots of people who still use mobiles as a phone and think social sites are sad. I work in a school so I am including kids here. I used sweets as an example because I didn't think it was the norm to eat quantities of sweets. Alright! It wasn't the best analogy. [url]http://www.nhsdirect.wales.nhs.uk/Encyclopaedia/s/article/shortsightedness/#Causes[/url] ---------------------------------------------------- "[i][b]Close work[/b] There appears to be some truth to the ‘old wives’ tale’ that too much reading in bad light is bad for your eyes. There certainly seems to be some connection between children or young adults who spend a lot of time doing ‘close work’, such as reading, writing and [/i][b][u]computer work[/u][i][/b], and an increased risk of developing short-sightedness. One study found that children who read for 30 minutes or more per day were 1½ times more likely to develop short-sightedness than children who didn’t. However, as reading brings personal enjoyment and educational achievement, many people who enjoy it, or parents who encourage their children to read, are willing to accept some risk of short-sightedness.[/i]" ------------------------------------------------------ 30 minutes or more. That's not very long! I completely agree than the 3D helps improve your eye's stereoscopic vision but I would argue the retina plays a far more significant role in general vision because it focuses. I think I am right in saying our binary vision is only needed for stereoscopic sight, which becomes increasingly ineffective from 150m, and an increased FOV. If I close one eye, look out of a window and let my open eye zoom in and out; it is pretty sharp. Also, I don't think you need pinprick sharp zoning either if you know what I mean. Just Googled it: 2' sharp vision out of 130' FOV; that's hardly pinprick! I think the benefits of 3D are negligible compared to not looking at a screen. With regard to 3D, I think to say it is [u][b]not [/b][/u]harmful to your eyes is debatable; to say it is *good* for your eyes is a bit of a stretch.
Heh!

I love how pro-screen we all are here - NERDS! ;P

@Jognt

I am fairly sure it's still not yet the norm to stare at the screen. :) I think people are forgetting this. I know lots of people who still use mobiles as a phone and think social sites are sad. I work in a school so I am including kids here. I used sweets as an example because I didn't think it was the norm to eat quantities of sweets. Alright! It wasn't the best analogy.

http://www.nhsdirect.wales.nhs.uk/Encyclopaedia/s/article/shortsightedness/#Causes

----------------------------------------------------

"Close work

There appears to be some truth to the ‘old wives’ tale’ that too much reading in bad light is bad for your eyes.

There certainly seems to be some connection between children or young adults who spend a lot of time doing ‘close work’, such as reading, writing and
computer work, and an increased risk of developing short-sightedness.

One study found that children who read for 30 minutes or more per day were 1½ times more likely to develop short-sightedness than children who didn’t.

However, as reading brings personal enjoyment and educational achievement, many people who enjoy it, or parents who encourage their children to read, are willing to accept some risk of short-sightedness.
"

------------------------------------------------------

30 minutes or more. That's not very long!

I completely agree than the 3D helps improve your eye's stereoscopic vision but I would argue the retina plays a far more significant role in general vision because it focuses. I think I am right in saying our binary vision is only needed for stereoscopic sight, which becomes increasingly ineffective from 150m, and an increased FOV.

If I close one eye, look out of a window and let my open eye zoom in and out; it is pretty sharp. Also, I don't think you need pinprick sharp zoning either if you know what I mean. Just Googled it: 2' sharp vision out of 130' FOV; that's hardly pinprick! I think the benefits of 3D are negligible compared to not looking at a screen.

With regard to 3D, I think to say it is not harmful to your eyes is debatable; to say it is *good* for your eyes is a bit of a stretch.

Lord, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can, and the wisdom to know the difference.
-------------------
Vitals: Windows 7 64bit, i5 2500 @ 4.4ghz, SLI GTX670, 8GB, Viewsonic VX2268WM

Handy Driver Discussion
Helix Mod - community fixes
Bo3b's Shaderhacker School - How to fix 3D in games
3dsolutionsgaming.com - videos, reviews and 3D fixes

#55
Posted 06/05/2014 02:43 PM   
I have always thought that playing with 3D glasses has some kind of advantages concerning to eye muscles, and probably most people (at least it happens to me) will experience some kind of "confort" if playing with a correct game and with correct depth and convergence (those are very relative to each person, I guess). I also find that I have to focus less my eyes using 3D glasses, maybe because I share my attention to the whole FOV. Also I have experienced different cons when playing with 3D glasses, as ghosting effects, color variation and darkness scene, decrease of fps, some kind of flickering because of the usual 60hz/eye, etc. But what I wonder now with this thread is if there are other cons, and specifically related to our health instead of our experience playing. As I said, my intention is not to troll (even though always there are some people that will not agree, that is unavoidable). My intention is to open a debate about this matter to dig into the hole and discover if there is any other point of view that can clarify mine. I "want" to believe that EMF radiation is not harmful, but it is not what I want, it is what is true or not. I would like to be sure (at least) that the emitter only uses IR totally safe signals, and that the glasses only receive, and doesn't matter the distance to our brain. I think we all want to be sure that what we are using everyday is totally safe, that is all.
I have always thought that playing with 3D glasses has some kind of advantages concerning to eye muscles, and probably most people (at least it happens to me) will experience some kind of "confort" if playing with a correct game and with correct depth and convergence (those are very relative to each person, I guess). I also find that I have to focus less my eyes using 3D glasses, maybe because I share my attention to the whole FOV.

Also I have experienced different cons when playing with 3D glasses, as ghosting effects, color variation and darkness scene, decrease of fps, some kind of flickering because of the usual 60hz/eye, etc.

But what I wonder now with this thread is if there are other cons, and specifically related to our health instead of our experience playing. As I said, my intention is not to troll (even though always there are some people that will not agree, that is unavoidable). My intention is to open a debate about this matter to dig into the hole and discover if there is any other point of view that can clarify mine. I "want" to believe that EMF radiation is not harmful, but it is not what I want, it is what is true or not.

I would like to be sure (at least) that the emitter only uses IR totally safe signals, and that the glasses only receive, and doesn't matter the distance to our brain. I think we all want to be sure that what we are using everyday is totally safe, that is all.

- Windows 7 64bits (SSD OCZ-Vertez2 128Gb)
- "ASUS P6X58D-E" motherboard
- "MSI GTX 660 TI"
- "Intel Xeon X5670" @4000MHz CPU (20.0[12-25]x200MHz)
- RAM 16 Gb DDR3 1600
- "Dell S2716DG" monitor (2560x1440 @144Hz)
- "Corsair Carbide 600C" case
- Labrador dog (cinnamon edition)

#56
Posted 06/05/2014 06:05 PM   
But there is one thing that hurts my eyes the most, it's reading white on black... outch...
But there is one thing that hurts my eyes the most, it's reading white on black... outch...

Intel Core i7-3820, 4 X 3,60 GHz overclocked to 4,50 GHz ; EVGA Titan X 12VRAM ; 16 GB Corsair Vengeance DDR-1600 (4x 4 GB) ; Asus VG278H 27-inch incl. 3D vision 2 glasses, integrated transmitter ; Xbox One Elite wireless controller ; Windows 10HTC VIVE 2,5 m2 roomscale3D VISION GAMERS - VISIT ME ON STEAM and feel free to add me: http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198064106555 YOUTUBE: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC1UE5TPoF0HX0HVpF_E4uPQ STEAM CURATOR: https://store.steampowered.com/curator/33611530-Streaming-Deluxe/ Image

#57
Posted 06/05/2014 06:18 PM   
Whoa! What a thread we have going on here! I just wanted to chime in here about the use of 3D by young children. I've been a dedicated 3D enthusiast for as long as I can remember and 3D Vision user since 2010 and I love to share my enjoyment with anyone who'll watch by demoing it for friends and family. (I'm woz2601's brother and played a large part in motivating him to correct his stereoscopic vision problems). My son is now almost 5 yrs old and we have been playing games and watching movies in 3d at least once a week for the last year or so. I had heard a lot about the concerns people have with young children's eye development being affected by 3d and I was a tad worried about exposing my gamer-in-training to long sessions of 3d eye-candy. I spoke with a bunch of people (doctors and optometrists) and the general consensus was that the eye is a muscle like any other and although it can be strained, working it out is good for it and does strengthen the muscle over time. When I first decided to mod a pair of my DLP glasses for him (they are a little too big and kept falling off his face, so I created a removable neck strap that keeps them where he finds it comfortable), I made it very clear to him that he should let me know if he had any discomfort in his eyes or felt any kind of strain and that would mean it was time for a break. This works very well and when we are having our weekly 3d marathons he does mention that it is starting to bother him (usually after about an hour or so) and we just switch to 2d mode for a while until he thinks he can handle it again and all is good. After a year of this, I can see that his tolerance is better (we can now get through a whole movie if the separation isn't too extreme) and his vision is still fine if not better overall.
Whoa! What a thread we have going on here! I just wanted to chime in here about the use of 3D by young children. I've been a dedicated 3D enthusiast for as long as I can remember and 3D Vision user since 2010 and I love to share my enjoyment with anyone who'll watch by demoing it for friends and family. (I'm woz2601's brother and played a large part in motivating him to correct his stereoscopic vision problems).

My son is now almost 5 yrs old and we have been playing games and watching movies in 3d at least once a week for the last year or so. I had heard a lot about the concerns people have with young children's eye development being affected by 3d and I was a tad worried about exposing my gamer-in-training to long sessions of 3d eye-candy. I spoke with a bunch of people (doctors and optometrists) and the general consensus was that the eye is a muscle like any other and although it can be strained, working it out is good for it and does strengthen the muscle over time. When I first decided to mod a pair of my DLP glasses for him (they are a little too big and kept falling off his face, so I created a removable neck strap that keeps them where he finds it comfortable), I made it very clear to him that he should let me know if he had any discomfort in his eyes or felt any kind of strain and that would mean it was time for a break. This works very well and when we are having our weekly 3d marathons he does mention that it is starting to bother him (usually after about an hour or so) and we just switch to 2d mode for a while until he thinks he can handle it again and all is good.

After a year of this, I can see that his tolerance is better (we can now get through a whole movie if the separation isn't too extreme) and his vision is still fine if not better overall.

#58
Posted 06/05/2014 08:41 PM   
[quote="Volnaiskra"][quote="woz2601]That's the whole point though, isn't it? I mean, I agree with you, and I'll admit it; I too have sometimes thought that I'm somehow the exception, but doesn't that just prove the statement?[/quote]I guess so, though isn't it a kind of a catch 22 situation? If people are too stupid to know the truth, then how could the author be sure about that statement being true? How can you as a reader be sure about it? It's a simple statement, and almost every reader who reads that will think he understands the point and is therefore at least somewhat aware of his intellectual frailties.....yet if that were true, then surely that would invalidate the statement itself. It's almost like one of those logical paradoxes that is purposely unsolveable.[/quote] I know! I think that's a big part of why I love it so much. I love logical paradoxes, precisely because there is no definitive answer. Here's another one for example: I've always wondered if I might be some sort of crazy. But then I think, if I was crazy, I probably wouldn't realize it. So the fact that I'm questioning my sanity, means that I must be sane. Okay fine, so now I've convinced myself that I'm not crazy. But then isn't that exactly what I thought I would think, if I was indeed crazy? (So far, I've become more and more convinced that everyone's at least little bit crazy. I think it's more a question of how crazy one is. Not that moderate amounts of crazy is necessarily a bad thing.) It really just amuses me more than anything else. I said before that I've always found that quote to be true, but I don't mean that it's necessarily some kind of absolute truth that I've lived my life by or anything. Just more of an entertaining thing to think about, really. [quote="Foulplay99"]I speak to a lot stupid people. I've dealt with somewhere around 120,000 banking customers in the last 10 years answering queries by telephone and email, and its actually quite sad how many of those customers are more than willing to be angry, rude, insulting and ignorant as well as stupid. Common sense is sadly missing from large numbers of people, specially those who believe just because they exist they are superior to everyone else, who believe nothing bad can ever happen to them, and anyone they deem responsible should suffer - all whilst never taking any responsibility for their own actions. Stupidity is a broad term, but like Einstein once said "Only 2 things are truly infinite - the Universe and the stupidity of people - but I'm still not sure about the Universe". If people were all truly intelligent the world sincerely would be a better place.[/quote] I agree. I too worked in customer service for a year recently, and most of the people I spoke with did not seem to be too intelligent. Maybe "not intelligent" is the wrong way of putting it. It was more like they were just too lazy to think. Of course, I have no idea what kind of representation of the population I was dealing with. I think we can all agree though that Einstein was brighter than most. In fact, can we really say that he was any less intelligent than a theoretical advanced race of beings from another galaxy or from our own evolutionary future? I think if we all were as smart as Einstein, we would be that theoretical advanced race. Of course, I'm not sure there's a limit to how smart one can be. So as smart as we would all be, I guess you could always imagine an even smarter race.
Volnaiskra said:
woz2601 said:That's the whole point though, isn't it? I mean, I agree with you, and I'll admit it; I too have sometimes thought that I'm somehow the exception, but doesn't that just prove the statement?
I guess so, though isn't it a kind of a catch 22 situation? If people are too stupid to know the truth, then how could the author be sure about that statement being true? How can you as a reader be sure about it?

It's a simple statement, and almost every reader who reads that will think he understands the point and is therefore at least somewhat aware of his intellectual frailties.....yet if that were true, then surely that would invalidate the statement itself. It's almost like one of those logical paradoxes that is purposely unsolveable.


I know! I think that's a big part of why I love it so much. I love logical paradoxes, precisely because there is no definitive answer. Here's another one for example:

I've always wondered if I might be some sort of crazy. But then I think, if I was crazy, I probably wouldn't realize it. So the fact that I'm questioning my sanity, means that I must be sane. Okay fine, so now I've convinced myself that I'm not crazy. But then isn't that exactly what I thought I would think, if I was indeed crazy? (So far, I've become more and more convinced that everyone's at least little bit crazy. I think it's more a question of how crazy one is. Not that moderate amounts of crazy is necessarily a bad thing.)

It really just amuses me more than anything else. I said before that I've always found that quote to be true, but I don't mean that it's necessarily some kind of absolute truth that I've lived my life by or anything. Just more of an entertaining thing to think about, really.

Foulplay99 said:I speak to a lot stupid people. I've dealt with somewhere around 120,000 banking customers in the last 10 years answering queries by telephone and email, and its actually quite sad how many of those customers are more than willing to be angry, rude, insulting and ignorant as well as stupid.

Common sense is sadly missing from large numbers of people, specially those who believe just because they exist they are superior to everyone else, who believe nothing bad can ever happen to them, and anyone they deem responsible should suffer - all whilst never taking any responsibility for their own actions.

Stupidity is a broad term, but like Einstein once said "Only 2 things are truly infinite - the Universe and the stupidity of people - but I'm still not sure about the Universe".

If people were all truly intelligent the world sincerely would be a better place.


I agree. I too worked in customer service for a year recently, and most of the people I spoke with did not seem to be too intelligent. Maybe "not intelligent" is the wrong way of putting it. It was more like they were just too lazy to think. Of course, I have no idea what kind of representation of the population I was dealing with.

I think we can all agree though that Einstein was brighter than most. In fact, can we really say that he was any less intelligent than a theoretical advanced race of beings from another galaxy or from our own evolutionary future? I think if we all were as smart as Einstein, we would be that theoretical advanced race. Of course, I'm not sure there's a limit to how smart one can be. So as smart as we would all be, I guess you could always imagine an even smarter race.

i7 4770k, Asus Maximus VI Hero, Corsair Vengeance 16GB, Asus Strix 970, Asus VG236H, Win 8

#59
Posted 06/05/2014 09:04 PM   
Why are people stupid? (All of us, me too.) I strongly encourage you to read that website I posted: [url]http://youarenotsosmart.com/[/url] It explains a number of our fundamental psychological biases as humans. Things like why we ignore all data that conflicts with our world view. From an outside perspective, ignoring facts is what makes you look stupid. We call it being 'stupid', which it clearly is at one level, but it is also inescapable because it's how we are wired.
Why are people stupid? (All of us, me too.)

I strongly encourage you to read that website I posted:

http://youarenotsosmart.com/


It explains a number of our fundamental psychological biases as humans. Things like why we ignore all data that conflicts with our world view. From an outside perspective, ignoring facts is what makes you look stupid.

We call it being 'stupid', which it clearly is at one level, but it is also inescapable because it's how we are wired.

Acer H5360 (1280x720@120Hz) - ASUS VG248QE with GSync mod - 3D Vision 1&2 - Driver 372.54
GTX 970 - i5-4670K@4.2GHz - 12GB RAM - Win7x64+evilKB2670838 - 4 Disk X25 RAID
SAGER NP9870-S - GTX 980 - i7-6700K - Win10 Pro 1607
Latest 3Dmigoto Release
Bo3b's School for ShaderHackers

#60
Posted 06/06/2014 12:12 AM   
  4 / 5    
Scroll To Top