From: Michael M. Butler (butler@comp-lib.org)
Date: Sat Dec 16 2000 - 16:51:11 MST
Ah, friend Eugene, I said "paper(like)". An augmented shared reality
headup, while fun and useful, can have tactical limitations. You have to
haul it around on your head and someone can hit you with a rock or
automobile from your blind spot, literal or cognitive. I want one, but
not always, not for a while yet. Not until sensor fusion and such can
guarantee I'll always have a clear view of what might kill me. And heck,
I don't have that *now* :).
On the gripping hand, retinas are paperlike, or so I'm told. :)
The problem with defining the standards "right" is that the broken but
sort of extensible ones tend to win because they're easy to implement.
See HTML. OTOH, VRML sucked and hasn't got a chance of becoming the
truly immersive standard.... right? we hope?
Time to really push for something based on Meme?
Eugene.Leitl@lrz.uni-muenchen.de wrote:
>
> "Michael M. Butler" wrote:
> >
> > As matter will become software, so displays will become paper (like).
> > This is my prediction. Where's that damned Idea Futures URL, again? :)
>
> I'm rather betting on a really decent hi-res headup. Anything you have
> to haul around physically and can lose is only tolerable as long as
> as augmented shared reality headups are not ubiquitous.
>
> Now here's a challenge: defining the standards before some
> johnny-come-lately
> ships something profoundly broken, and gains sufficient market share to
> establish a de facto standard.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:32:25 MST