| youarebadatgames said: Research demonstrates concepts. Your argument is that Lightspace itself is not useful. I and most other people happen to disagree, and you don't give any real argument as to why it you deem it useless, especially when utility is defined by the person who needs it. I'd say presenting in a boardroom, or dynamically working with kids in an interactive classroom are all useful, legitimate demands for this technology. Furthermore, insuinuating that these researchers did nothing but copy someone else's concept, when what you quoted tells you EXACTLY what they did and how they build upon it tells me you do not understand how science is done. I suppose you'll tell me ALL papers out there are copies of other things, because they ALL cite relevant research. "Underkoffler et al. [25] demonstrated that combining projected graphics with real physical objects can enable interactive tabletop experiences such as simulating the casting of shadows by a physical architectural model. This prototype is embedded within a presentation of the larger (unrealized) vision of the “Luminous Room”, where all room surfaces are transformed into interactive displays by multiple “I/O Bulbs”: devices that can simultaneously sense and project. In many ways, LightSpace is the most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date." You even underlined it, but you say they just copied someone else's work, when it is the "most complete implementation of the Luminous Room concept to date." It demonstrates and embeds their previous work, adds the volumetric space between objects as interactive space, and uses multiple projectors to illuminate multiple surfaces. It is hardly just "copying" someone else's work. I knew from the beginning that you had an agenda, and it's clear that you are just arguing for the sake of hearing your own voice. You should really get rid of the "prof" part of your name, because it's clearly obvious you've never been around higher education let alone real world research. |
I ALREADY said why it is useless: Because it requires projectors!
And then you argued with me for 10 posts that it wasn't about projectors, and now when I prove conclusively that it depends on projectors, you instead focus on my statement that they simply built off of another concept and said I'm wrong, because they built off of it the most completely. And you also say that I never explain why it is useless!!!
And my one request (that you explain exactly how you think this tech would be used in any of those applications) has been ignored. I ask you to do this because you come up with groundless applications. In a gun or a turret, or in a boardroom, or in school (despite the scientist saying that a maximum of 6 people can make use of the system) and use abstract ideas as evidence refuting my posts! Incredible!
Like: "You can't see with your limited understanding of scientifically basic concepts, and inability to read how this would be useful in automated defense". WOW
I have submitted to your requests time and time again, and you have ignored every single attempt I've made to gain some understanding of how you understand the technology. What this shows is that you lack confidence if all you can do is criticize what is being said without presenting any suitable evidence of your own behalf.
Even so.....
....you insult me, saying I'm not able to read and not understanding the concept yet it is you who didn't understand that it needs projectors as a fundamental necessity. A FUNDAMENTAL REQUIREMENT! You said over and over, that lightspace isn't about projectors, and at one point even said that it didn't NEED projectors!!!!!
At one juncture, you even said you'd be able to move a file from a monitor to your phone and then take it away with you! If that doesn't demonstrate the most complete lack of understanding, then I understand how you can continue to insult.
Your inability to admit any fault, along with your condescending attitude and insults, inability to understand the core idea of lightspace, and citing wiki, along with some made up story***, can only mean that you posted simply to defend it(kinect/microsoft) against criticism as part of a defense force type behavior.
Without understanding the core facets of Lightspace, you said it would apply to things that it would have no bearing on (automated turrets and guns), and rely on abstract concepts without explanation.
I even provided an example of a board room using lightspace compared to one using standard virtual whiteboards (interactive projection displays using IR), and pointed out how there is virtually no advantage to using lightspace as opposed to them. And your reply was something like "teleconferencing"!
Is this real or are you trolling me?
You must be trolling me. I refuse to believe that you are serious about this.
***(when you thought it would be good for auto-turrets and then you thought about the maker and remembered it was an Israeli company and imagined that he might have been military and then looked up the guy that developed the primesense camera to find he was ex-military, thereby somehow confirming that turrets using lightspace made sense. That's already a really huge leap of logic there: "the guy that makes the camera is ex-military, therefore lightspace, a microsoft concept, is made for military use like guns and turrets"!
What's more likely is that you had no idea what you were talking about, looked up the maker (hence superficial wiki presence shown by your link), and seeing he was ex-military went on to make a ridiculous claim about auto-turrets, without even explaining how you'd think it would work, only to run into an obstacle where it was explained to you that lightspace uses projectors, which accounts for why you completely abandoned turrets and military applications in your most recent insulting post
" I'd say presenting in a boardroom, or dynamically working with kids in an interactive classroom are all useful, legitimate demands for this technology." --
This makes the most sense to me, given this "argument". You are playing MS defense force.
