Scientists are also exploring the possibility of developing biosensors for VR use. A biosensor can detect and interpret nerve and muscle activity. With a properly calibrated biosensor, a computer can interpret how a user is moving in physical space and translate that into the corresponding motions in virtual space. Biosensors may be attached directly to the skin of a user, or may be incorporated into gloves or bodysuits. One limitation to biosensor suits is that they must be custom made for each user or the sensors will not line up properly on the user’s body.
Mary Whitton, of UNC-Chapel Hill, believes that the entertainment industry will drive the development of most VR technology going forward. The video game industry in particular has contributed advancements in graphics and sound capabilities that engineers can incorporate into virtual reality systems’ designs. One advance that Whitton finds particularly interesting is the Nintendo Wii’s wand controller. The controller is not only a commercially available device with some tracking capabilities; it’s also affordable and appeals to people who don’t normally play video games. Since tracking and input devices are two areas that traditionally have fallen behind other VR technologies, this controller could be the first of a new wave of technological advances useful to VR systems.
Virtual Reality on the Web
Some programmers envision the Internet developing into a three-dimensional virtual space, where you navigate through virtual landscapes to access information and entertainment. Web sites could take form as a three-dimensional location, allowing users to explore in a much more literal way than before. Programmers have developed several different computer languages and Web browsers to achieve this vision. Some of these include:
* Virtual Reality Modeling Language (VRML)- the earliest three-dimensional modeling language for the Web.
* 3DML - a three-dimensional modeling language where a user can visit a spot (or Web site) through most Internet browsers after installing a plug-in.
* X3D - the language that replaced VRML as the standard for creating virtual environments in the Internet.
* Collaborative Design Activity (COLLADA) - a format used to allow file interchanges within three-dimensional programs.
Of course, many VE experts would argue that without an HMD, Internet-based systems are not true virtual environments. They lack critical elements of immersion, particularly tracking and displaying images as life-sized.
Minggu, 01 Juni 2008
Air Pollution and Acid Rain
You may have some firsthand experience with air pollution, because almost every city--and even parts of the country--have polluted air. How did the air get this bad? Electricity production--the pollution generated by power plants--has contributed a lot to poor air quality. Cars are another big problem. While the cars made today pollute far less than cars made a few years ago, the are many more cars on the road today, and the typical car drives more miles each year than ever before. As a result, air pollution from cars hasn't decreased much.
In some areas, such as Los Angeles, air pollution has become so bad that the government has been forced to restrict many everyday activities, including driving a car, having a barbecue, even mowing the lawn with a power mower. All of these activities contribute to air pollution.
What's wrong with air pollution? When the air gets too dirty, it can be uncomfortable to breathe, and with every breath you may be inhaling substances that can make you sick. But even when the air is only a little polluted, the effects can still cause many illnesses, particularly among very young children and older adults like your grandparents.
That's not all. Air pollution also hurts plants and animals. It can poison trees and crops, and may even kill entire forests.
When the Rain Becomes Poison
We used to count on a good rainfall to cleanse the air of pollutants. Now, in some parts of the United States, even the rain is polluted. We call it "acid rain," even though the problem also pollutes the snow, sleet, hail, and even fog!
What turns the rain into poison? The problem comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, including gasoline burned in automobile engines and oil used for cooking and heating. The biggest source is the burning of coal--especially certain kinds of coal that contain high levels of sulfur--in electric-generating plants.
All of these sources release either sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. Once in the air, these two substances mix with other chemicals and water to form sulfuric acid. When these chemicals mix with moisture, they fall to Earth, where they can cause a great deal of harm.
What happens to acid rain when it reaches the ground? For one thing, it poisons fish and other things that live in rivers, lakes, and streams. It also kills trees. Buildings and monuments can also be affected. Some of the oldest and most treasured buildings in the world have been found to have damage caused by acid rain.
Acid rain also affects people. Some scientist see it as a threat to human health, causing lung disease and other serious problems. Babies, senior citizens, and people who have respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis are among those most seriously affected by acid rain.
What Can You Do?
The most important thing you can do is to conserve energy wisely. The less we use, the less we must generate through polluting power plants. As you'll see, there are many things you can do to reduce your energy use--without limiting the activities you've always done.
In some areas, such as Los Angeles, air pollution has become so bad that the government has been forced to restrict many everyday activities, including driving a car, having a barbecue, even mowing the lawn with a power mower. All of these activities contribute to air pollution.
What's wrong with air pollution? When the air gets too dirty, it can be uncomfortable to breathe, and with every breath you may be inhaling substances that can make you sick. But even when the air is only a little polluted, the effects can still cause many illnesses, particularly among very young children and older adults like your grandparents.
That's not all. Air pollution also hurts plants and animals. It can poison trees and crops, and may even kill entire forests.
When the Rain Becomes Poison
We used to count on a good rainfall to cleanse the air of pollutants. Now, in some parts of the United States, even the rain is polluted. We call it "acid rain," even though the problem also pollutes the snow, sleet, hail, and even fog!
What turns the rain into poison? The problem comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, including gasoline burned in automobile engines and oil used for cooking and heating. The biggest source is the burning of coal--especially certain kinds of coal that contain high levels of sulfur--in electric-generating plants.
All of these sources release either sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. Once in the air, these two substances mix with other chemicals and water to form sulfuric acid. When these chemicals mix with moisture, they fall to Earth, where they can cause a great deal of harm.
What happens to acid rain when it reaches the ground? For one thing, it poisons fish and other things that live in rivers, lakes, and streams. It also kills trees. Buildings and monuments can also be affected. Some of the oldest and most treasured buildings in the world have been found to have damage caused by acid rain.
Acid rain also affects people. Some scientist see it as a threat to human health, causing lung disease and other serious problems. Babies, senior citizens, and people who have respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis are among those most seriously affected by acid rain.
What Can You Do?
The most important thing you can do is to conserve energy wisely. The less we use, the less we must generate through polluting power plants. As you'll see, there are many things you can do to reduce your energy use--without limiting the activities you've always done.
Water Pollution
Finding fresh water is getting harder. For one thing, there are more people on the planet, and that requires more water for washing, growing food, and sustaining life. All those people create a lot of waste, some of which ends up polluting rivers, lakes, and streams. And companies that dump hazardous substances into the water make the problem even worse.
The water in your home is probably pumped from rivers and reservoirs. The more water you use, the more likely it is that some beautiful valley will be flooded as a reservoir, or that some river will begin to run dry, killing the wildlife in and around it. And the more dirty water you send down the drain, the more difficult it is for the sewage system to cope. Accidental overflows of sewage can seriously pollute land and water.
What Pollutes the Water?
There are many, many sources of water pollution, some of which may surprise you. We usually think of huge pipes dumping industrial waste into rivers, but only 10 percent of water pollution comes from industrial dumping.
To fully understand what pollutes water, it is first important to understand where your drinking water comes from. Nearly half of all Americans and three-fourths of those who live in cities get their water from underground sources. Underground water picks up whatever it passes through. Rainwater and melted snow--running off parking lots, rooftops, streets, and farms--carry with them deadly substances. During a storm, the pollutants are washed into rivers and streams. And once they get into the water cycle, they never seem to leave.
One big source of pollution is farmers. Farming uses about two-thirds of all water in the United States. Every year, millions of pounds of pesticides and fertilizers run off of farmland and contaminate the water supply.
How Much Do You Use?
It is difficult to imagine how much water is used in your home every day. Here is a rough guide.
1 flush of the toilet 3.5-7 gallons
1 bath 25-30 gallons
1 10-minute shower 50-70 gallons
1 washing machine load 25-40 gallons
1 dishwasher load 9.5-12 gallons
Try to figure out approximately how many gallons of water you use in your home. If your home is typical, each member of your household uses about 80 gallons of water a day. That's a lot of water, and the less we use, the better it will be for the environment.
What Can You Do?
There are two things you can do: don't waste water and don't be a polluter. Be sure to check out the Going Green in the Home section of this site to learn how to save water in your household.
The water in your home is probably pumped from rivers and reservoirs. The more water you use, the more likely it is that some beautiful valley will be flooded as a reservoir, or that some river will begin to run dry, killing the wildlife in and around it. And the more dirty water you send down the drain, the more difficult it is for the sewage system to cope. Accidental overflows of sewage can seriously pollute land and water.
What Pollutes the Water?
There are many, many sources of water pollution, some of which may surprise you. We usually think of huge pipes dumping industrial waste into rivers, but only 10 percent of water pollution comes from industrial dumping.
To fully understand what pollutes water, it is first important to understand where your drinking water comes from. Nearly half of all Americans and three-fourths of those who live in cities get their water from underground sources. Underground water picks up whatever it passes through. Rainwater and melted snow--running off parking lots, rooftops, streets, and farms--carry with them deadly substances. During a storm, the pollutants are washed into rivers and streams. And once they get into the water cycle, they never seem to leave.
One big source of pollution is farmers. Farming uses about two-thirds of all water in the United States. Every year, millions of pounds of pesticides and fertilizers run off of farmland and contaminate the water supply.
How Much Do You Use?
It is difficult to imagine how much water is used in your home every day. Here is a rough guide.
1 flush of the toilet 3.5-7 gallons
1 bath 25-30 gallons
1 10-minute shower 50-70 gallons
1 washing machine load 25-40 gallons
1 dishwasher load 9.5-12 gallons
Try to figure out approximately how many gallons of water you use in your home. If your home is typical, each member of your household uses about 80 gallons of water a day. That's a lot of water, and the less we use, the better it will be for the environment.
What Can You Do?
There are two things you can do: don't waste water and don't be a polluter. Be sure to check out the Going Green in the Home section of this site to learn how to save water in your household.
Air Pollution and Acid Rain
You may have some firsthand experience with air pollution, because almost every city--and even parts of the country--have polluted air. How did the air get this bad? Electricity production--the pollution generated by power plants--has contributed a lot to poor air quality. Cars are another big problem. While the cars made today pollute far less than cars made a few years ago, the are many more cars on the road today, and the typical car drives more miles each year than ever before. As a result, air pollution from cars hasn't decreased much.
In some areas, such as Los Angeles, air pollution has become so bad that the government has been forced to restrict many everyday activities, including driving a car, having a barbecue, even mowing the lawn with a power mower. All of these activities contribute to air pollution.
What's wrong with air pollution? When the air gets too dirty, it can be uncomfortable to breathe, and with every breath you may be inhaling substances that can make you sick. But even when the air is only a little polluted, the effects can still cause many illnesses, particularly among very young children and older adults like your grandparents.
That's not all. Air pollution also hurts plants and animals. It can poison trees and crops, and may even kill entire forests.
When the Rain Becomes Poison
We used to count on a good rainfall to cleanse the air of pollutants. Now, in some parts of the United States, even the rain is polluted. We call it "acid rain," even though the problem also pollutes the snow, sleet, hail, and even fog!
What turns the rain into poison? The problem comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, including gasoline burned in automobile engines and oil used for cooking and heating. The biggest source is the burning of coal--especially certain kinds of coal that contain high levels of sulfur--in electric-generating plants.
All of these sources release either sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. Once in the air, these two substances mix with other chemicals and water to form sulfuric acid. When these chemicals mix with moisture, they fall to Earth, where they can cause a great deal of harm.
What happens to acid rain when it reaches the ground? For one thing, it poisons fish and other things that live in rivers, lakes, and streams. It also kills trees. Buildings and monuments can also be affected. Some of the oldest and most treasured buildings in the world have been found to have damage caused by acid rain.
Acid rain also affects people. Some scientist see it as a threat to human health, causing lung disease and other serious problems. Babies, senior citizens, and people who have respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis are among those most seriously affected by acid rain.
What Can You Do?
The most important thing you can do is to conserve energy wisely. The less we use, the less we must generate through polluting power plants. As you'll see, there are many things you can do to reduce your energy use--without limiting the activities you've always done.
In some areas, such as Los Angeles, air pollution has become so bad that the government has been forced to restrict many everyday activities, including driving a car, having a barbecue, even mowing the lawn with a power mower. All of these activities contribute to air pollution.
What's wrong with air pollution? When the air gets too dirty, it can be uncomfortable to breathe, and with every breath you may be inhaling substances that can make you sick. But even when the air is only a little polluted, the effects can still cause many illnesses, particularly among very young children and older adults like your grandparents.
That's not all. Air pollution also hurts plants and animals. It can poison trees and crops, and may even kill entire forests.
When the Rain Becomes Poison
We used to count on a good rainfall to cleanse the air of pollutants. Now, in some parts of the United States, even the rain is polluted. We call it "acid rain," even though the problem also pollutes the snow, sleet, hail, and even fog!
What turns the rain into poison? The problem comes primarily from the burning of fossil fuels, including gasoline burned in automobile engines and oil used for cooking and heating. The biggest source is the burning of coal--especially certain kinds of coal that contain high levels of sulfur--in electric-generating plants.
All of these sources release either sulfur dioxide or nitrogen oxides. Once in the air, these two substances mix with other chemicals and water to form sulfuric acid. When these chemicals mix with moisture, they fall to Earth, where they can cause a great deal of harm.
What happens to acid rain when it reaches the ground? For one thing, it poisons fish and other things that live in rivers, lakes, and streams. It also kills trees. Buildings and monuments can also be affected. Some of the oldest and most treasured buildings in the world have been found to have damage caused by acid rain.
Acid rain also affects people. Some scientist see it as a threat to human health, causing lung disease and other serious problems. Babies, senior citizens, and people who have respiratory diseases such as asthma and bronchitis are among those most seriously affected by acid rain.
What Can You Do?
The most important thing you can do is to conserve energy wisely. The less we use, the less we must generate through polluting power plants. As you'll see, there are many things you can do to reduce your energy use--without limiting the activities you've always done.
The Virtual Reality Headset
Today, most VE systems are powered by normal personal computers. PCs are sophisticated enough to develop and run the software necessary to create virtual environments. Graphics are usually handled by powerful graphics cards originally designed with the video gaming community in mind. The same video card that lets you play World of Warcraft is probably powering the graphics for an advanced virtual environment.
VE systems need a way to display images to a user. Many systems use HMDs, which are headsets that contain two monitors, one for each eye. The images create a stereoscopic effect, giving the illusion of depth. Early HMDs used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, which were bulky but provided good resolution and quality, or liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors, which were much cheaper but were unable to compete with the quality of CRT displays. Today, LCD displays are much more advanced, with improved resolution and color saturation, and have become more common than CRT monitors.
data suit
Photo courtesy of Dave Pape
A data suit to provide user input
Other VE systems project images on the walls, floor and ceiling of a room and are called Cave Automatic Virtual Environments (CAVE). The University of Illinois-Chicago designed the first CAVE display, using a rear projection technique to display images on the walls, floor and ceiling of a small room. Users can move around in a CAVE display, wearing special glasses to complete the illusion of moving through a virtual environment. CAVE displays give users a much wider field of view, which helps in immersion. They also allow a group of people to share the experience at the same time (though the display would track only one user’s point of view, meaning others in the room would be passive observers). CAVE displays are very expensive and require more space than other systems.
Closely related to display technology are tracking systems. Tracking systems analyze the orientation of a user’s point of view so that the computer system sends the right images to the visual display. Most systems require a user to be tethered with cables to a processing unit, limiting the range of motions available to him. Tracker technology developments tend to lag behind other VR technologies because the market for such technology is mainly VR-focused. Without the demands of other disciplines or applications, there isn’t as much interest in developing new ways to track user movements and point of view.
Input devices are also important in VR systems. Currently, input devices range from controllers with two or three buttons to electronic gloves and voice recognition software. There is no standard control system across the discipline. VR scientists and engineers are continuously exploring ways to make user input as natural as possible to increase the sense of telepresence. Some of the more common forms of input devices are:
* Joysticks
* Force balls/tracking balls
* Controller wands
* Datagloves
* Voice recognition
* Motion trackers/bodysuits
* Treadmills
VE systems need a way to display images to a user. Many systems use HMDs, which are headsets that contain two monitors, one for each eye. The images create a stereoscopic effect, giving the illusion of depth. Early HMDs used cathode ray tube (CRT) monitors, which were bulky but provided good resolution and quality, or liquid crystal display (LCD) monitors, which were much cheaper but were unable to compete with the quality of CRT displays. Today, LCD displays are much more advanced, with improved resolution and color saturation, and have become more common than CRT monitors.
data suit
Photo courtesy of Dave Pape
A data suit to provide user input
Other VE systems project images on the walls, floor and ceiling of a room and are called Cave Automatic Virtual Environments (CAVE). The University of Illinois-Chicago designed the first CAVE display, using a rear projection technique to display images on the walls, floor and ceiling of a small room. Users can move around in a CAVE display, wearing special glasses to complete the illusion of moving through a virtual environment. CAVE displays give users a much wider field of view, which helps in immersion. They also allow a group of people to share the experience at the same time (though the display would track only one user’s point of view, meaning others in the room would be passive observers). CAVE displays are very expensive and require more space than other systems.
Closely related to display technology are tracking systems. Tracking systems analyze the orientation of a user’s point of view so that the computer system sends the right images to the visual display. Most systems require a user to be tethered with cables to a processing unit, limiting the range of motions available to him. Tracker technology developments tend to lag behind other VR technologies because the market for such technology is mainly VR-focused. Without the demands of other disciplines or applications, there isn’t as much interest in developing new ways to track user movements and point of view.
Input devices are also important in VR systems. Currently, input devices range from controllers with two or three buttons to electronic gloves and voice recognition software. There is no standard control system across the discipline. VR scientists and engineers are continuously exploring ways to make user input as natural as possible to increase the sense of telepresence. Some of the more common forms of input devices are:
* Joysticks
* Force balls/tracking balls
* Controller wands
* Datagloves
* Voice recognition
* Motion trackers/bodysuits
* Treadmills
Holes in the Ozone Layer
Ozone is an invisible gas, a form of oxygen. A thin layer of ozone exists between 12 and 30 miles (20 to 50 kilometers) above the Earth and forms a protective shield that is vital to our survival. Without it, the sun would burn us, a few things would grow.
The ozone layer shields us from one particular kind of sunlight: ultraviolet (UV) light. Some UV light is important--it helps plants to grow, for example. UV light also gives people a suntan. But if much more UV light were allowed to filter through the ozone layer, it would cause some big problems. Millions of people could get eye and skin diseases, farmers' crops could become damaged, and fish could run out of food.
The Dangers of Chlorofluorocarbons
What is destroying the ozone layer? One of the biggest culprits is a family of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (pronounced KLOR-o-floor-o-CAR-bons), or CFCs. These are used in manufacturing hundreds of different products, including many that you and your parents buy regularly. Some kinds of plastics and foam packaging materials are made with CFCs. They are also used to keep refrigerators and air conditioners cool.
Why are CFCs so bad? When they are released into the atmosphere and interact with sunlight, CFCs release chlorine atoms. As they rise into the atmosphere, these chlorine atoms attack and destroy parts of the ozone layer. A single chlorine atom can destroy thousands of ozone molecules.
Ozone Holes
In 1985, scientists noticed that the ozone layer was not just thinning, but that there was actually a big hole in it over Antarctica. A very big hole. By 1987 it had stretched to cover an area the size of the United States. In 1988, scientists found another hole, this time over the arctic. The holes constantly change shape and size, depending on the time of year.
In 1990, many countries agreed to cut the use of CFCs substantially by the year 2000. Enviornmentalists hope that we can make a complete switch from CFCs even sooner. Several companies around the world are researching substances that can replaces CFCs in air conditioners, refrigerators, plastics, and in many manufacturing process.
The fact is, even if we were to stop using CFCs today, the existing chemicals would ensure the continued destruction of the ozone layer for at least a century! So, the sooner we stop, the less destruction of the ozone layer we will cause in the future.
What Can You Do?
The main thing you can do is avoid using products that contain CFCs. This isn't always easy to do because CFCs are used in thousands of products, including egg cartons, bicycle seats, toy stuffing, furniture cushions, yogurt machines, cameras, computers, TV sets, radios, and jewelry. But some products, such as plastics foam packaging, are easier to avoid. (Although fast-food containers usually do not contain CFCs, they contribute to the growing pile of trash. So, you should avoid them whenever possible.)
The ozone layer shields us from one particular kind of sunlight: ultraviolet (UV) light. Some UV light is important--it helps plants to grow, for example. UV light also gives people a suntan. But if much more UV light were allowed to filter through the ozone layer, it would cause some big problems. Millions of people could get eye and skin diseases, farmers' crops could become damaged, and fish could run out of food.
The Dangers of Chlorofluorocarbons
What is destroying the ozone layer? One of the biggest culprits is a family of chemicals called chlorofluorocarbons (pronounced KLOR-o-floor-o-CAR-bons), or CFCs. These are used in manufacturing hundreds of different products, including many that you and your parents buy regularly. Some kinds of plastics and foam packaging materials are made with CFCs. They are also used to keep refrigerators and air conditioners cool.
Why are CFCs so bad? When they are released into the atmosphere and interact with sunlight, CFCs release chlorine atoms. As they rise into the atmosphere, these chlorine atoms attack and destroy parts of the ozone layer. A single chlorine atom can destroy thousands of ozone molecules.
Ozone Holes
In 1985, scientists noticed that the ozone layer was not just thinning, but that there was actually a big hole in it over Antarctica. A very big hole. By 1987 it had stretched to cover an area the size of the United States. In 1988, scientists found another hole, this time over the arctic. The holes constantly change shape and size, depending on the time of year.
In 1990, many countries agreed to cut the use of CFCs substantially by the year 2000. Enviornmentalists hope that we can make a complete switch from CFCs even sooner. Several companies around the world are researching substances that can replaces CFCs in air conditioners, refrigerators, plastics, and in many manufacturing process.
The fact is, even if we were to stop using CFCs today, the existing chemicals would ensure the continued destruction of the ozone layer for at least a century! So, the sooner we stop, the less destruction of the ozone layer we will cause in the future.
What Can You Do?
The main thing you can do is avoid using products that contain CFCs. This isn't always easy to do because CFCs are used in thousands of products, including egg cartons, bicycle seats, toy stuffing, furniture cushions, yogurt machines, cameras, computers, TV sets, radios, and jewelry. But some products, such as plastics foam packaging, are easier to avoid. (Although fast-food containers usually do not contain CFCs, they contribute to the growing pile of trash. So, you should avoid them whenever possible.)
Virtual Reality Interactivity
Immersion within a virtual environment is one thing, but for a user to feel truly involved there must also be an element of interaction. Early applications using the technology common in VE systems today allowed the user to have a relatively passive experience. Users could watch a pre-recorded film while wearing a head-mounted display (HMD). They would sit in a motion chair and watch the film as the system subjected them to various stimuli, such as blowing air on them to simulate wind. While users felt a sense of immersion, interactivity was limited to shifting their point of view by looking around. Their path was pre-determined and unalterable.
cyber space mountain capsule
Photo courtesy of Sue Holland
DisneyQuest’s Cyber
Space Mountain Capsule
Today, you can find virtual roller coasters that use the same sort of technology. DisneyQuest in Orlando, Florida features CyberSpace Mountain, where patrons can design their own roller coaster, then enter a simulator to ride their virtual creation. The system is very immersive, but apart from the initial design phase there isn't any interaction, so it's not an example of a true virtual environment.
Interactivity depends on many factors. Steuer suggests that three of these factors are speed, range and mapping. Steuer defines speed as the rate that a user's actions are incorporated into the computer model and reflected in a way the user can perceive. Range refers to how many possible outcomes could result from any particular user action. Mapping is the system's ability to produce natural results in response to a user's actions.
Navigation within a virtual environment is one kind of interactivity. If a user can direct his own movement within the environment, it can be called an interactive experience. Most virtual environments include other forms of interaction, since users can easily become bored after just a few minutes of exploration. Computer Scientist Mary Whitton points out that poorly designed interaction can drastically reduce the sense of immersion, while finding ways to engage users can increase it. When a virtual environment is interesting and engaging, users are more willing to suspend disbelief and become immersed.
True interactivity also includes being able to modify the environment. A good virtual environment will respond to the user's actions in a way that makes sense, even if it only makes sense within the realm of the virtual environment. If a virtual environment changes in outlandish and unpredictable ways, it risks disrupting the user's sense of telepresence.
Immersion vs. Interaction
Developers have discovered that users feel a stronger sense of telepresence when interaction is easy and interesting, even if the VE isn't photorealistic, whereas very realistic environments that lack opportunities for interaction cause users to lose interest relatively quickly.
cyber space mountain capsule
Photo courtesy of Sue Holland
DisneyQuest’s Cyber
Space Mountain Capsule
Today, you can find virtual roller coasters that use the same sort of technology. DisneyQuest in Orlando, Florida features CyberSpace Mountain, where patrons can design their own roller coaster, then enter a simulator to ride their virtual creation. The system is very immersive, but apart from the initial design phase there isn't any interaction, so it's not an example of a true virtual environment.
Interactivity depends on many factors. Steuer suggests that three of these factors are speed, range and mapping. Steuer defines speed as the rate that a user's actions are incorporated into the computer model and reflected in a way the user can perceive. Range refers to how many possible outcomes could result from any particular user action. Mapping is the system's ability to produce natural results in response to a user's actions.
Navigation within a virtual environment is one kind of interactivity. If a user can direct his own movement within the environment, it can be called an interactive experience. Most virtual environments include other forms of interaction, since users can easily become bored after just a few minutes of exploration. Computer Scientist Mary Whitton points out that poorly designed interaction can drastically reduce the sense of immersion, while finding ways to engage users can increase it. When a virtual environment is interesting and engaging, users are more willing to suspend disbelief and become immersed.
True interactivity also includes being able to modify the environment. A good virtual environment will respond to the user's actions in a way that makes sense, even if it only makes sense within the realm of the virtual environment. If a virtual environment changes in outlandish and unpredictable ways, it risks disrupting the user's sense of telepresence.
Immersion vs. Interaction
Developers have discovered that users feel a stronger sense of telepresence when interaction is easy and interesting, even if the VE isn't photorealistic, whereas very realistic environments that lack opportunities for interaction cause users to lose interest relatively quickly.
The Greenhouse Effect
The Earth is surrounded by windows. We call these windows the atmosphere, a layer of air many miles up in the sky. As the sun shines on the Earth, the atmosphere lets the heat reach the ground, then prevents some of it from escaping back into space.
That's all fine. In fact, we need the atmosphere. Without it, the Earth would be as cold and lifeless as the surface of the moon. The problem is that our atmosphere is changing. Some of our favorite activities create gases that pollute the atmosphere. As those gases build up, the atmosphere keeps in too much heat.
What are Greenhouse Gases?
The most important is carbon dioxide, also known as CO2. All humans and animals produce CO2 every time we exhale, the but there's nothing we can do about that. The main source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gasoline--and wood.
Another greenhouse gas is nitrogen oxide, which is given off by cars as we drive them and by coal-burning power plants as they generate electricity.
Still another is methane, which is created by rotting plants and by household garbage as it deteriorates in landfills. (Humans and other animals also create methane--everytime we pass gas.)
What is the Effect?
We've been creating all of these gases for a long time. But now we're producing too much of them and they are making the Earth a little hotter. Here's what could happen if average temperatures on Earth increases just a few degrees:
• Some of the ice around the North Pole and the South Pole would melt.
• That melted ice would cause the sea levels to rise.
• People living near sea level could be flooded.
• Some places would become too hot to live in.
• Many farmers' crops would no longer grow.
Some scientists now think that the average temperatures on Earth could rise by between 3 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the next century. If that happened, water levels could flood much of New York City. In Washington, D.C., water would flood the Lincoln Memorial and nearly reach the Capitol steps!
That's just the beginning. As things got even warmer, hundreds of different living creatures could die and become extinct, while many kinds of pests (such as rats and mosquitoes) could multiply in the warmer climate.
The Earth's Natural Remedies
Some gases are soaked up naturally. Sea water soaks up carbon dioxide, and so do the tiny organisms in the sea called plankton. But because plankton soaks up more CO2 in colder water, as the Greenhouse Effect warms up the oceans, the plankton will absorb less carbon dioxide.
Plants on land also soak up CO2, especially the trees in the mighty rainforests of the world. But because trees in the rainforests are being cut down and burned, there are fewer trees to soak up the greenhouse gases. What's worse, the burning of trees actually produces even more CO2, contributing to the greenhouse problem. In fact, rainforest burning is one of the greatest contributors to the Greenhouse Effect.
What Can You Do?
One big way to help is to cut down on the use of energy. Every time you turn on the lights, open the refrigerator, turn on the heat, or take a ride in the car, you are using energy--electricity, gasoline, and natural gas, for example. The power plants that generate the electricity and the automobile engines that burn gasoline all create vast amounts of CO2.
That's all fine. In fact, we need the atmosphere. Without it, the Earth would be as cold and lifeless as the surface of the moon. The problem is that our atmosphere is changing. Some of our favorite activities create gases that pollute the atmosphere. As those gases build up, the atmosphere keeps in too much heat.
What are Greenhouse Gases?
The most important is carbon dioxide, also known as CO2. All humans and animals produce CO2 every time we exhale, the but there's nothing we can do about that. The main source of CO2 is the burning of fossil fuels--coal, oil, and gasoline--and wood.
Another greenhouse gas is nitrogen oxide, which is given off by cars as we drive them and by coal-burning power plants as they generate electricity.
Still another is methane, which is created by rotting plants and by household garbage as it deteriorates in landfills. (Humans and other animals also create methane--everytime we pass gas.)
What is the Effect?
We've been creating all of these gases for a long time. But now we're producing too much of them and they are making the Earth a little hotter. Here's what could happen if average temperatures on Earth increases just a few degrees:
• Some of the ice around the North Pole and the South Pole would melt.
• That melted ice would cause the sea levels to rise.
• People living near sea level could be flooded.
• Some places would become too hot to live in.
• Many farmers' crops would no longer grow.
Some scientists now think that the average temperatures on Earth could rise by between 3 and 10 degrees Fahrenheit by the middle of the next century. If that happened, water levels could flood much of New York City. In Washington, D.C., water would flood the Lincoln Memorial and nearly reach the Capitol steps!
That's just the beginning. As things got even warmer, hundreds of different living creatures could die and become extinct, while many kinds of pests (such as rats and mosquitoes) could multiply in the warmer climate.
The Earth's Natural Remedies
Some gases are soaked up naturally. Sea water soaks up carbon dioxide, and so do the tiny organisms in the sea called plankton. But because plankton soaks up more CO2 in colder water, as the Greenhouse Effect warms up the oceans, the plankton will absorb less carbon dioxide.
Plants on land also soak up CO2, especially the trees in the mighty rainforests of the world. But because trees in the rainforests are being cut down and burned, there are fewer trees to soak up the greenhouse gases. What's worse, the burning of trees actually produces even more CO2, contributing to the greenhouse problem. In fact, rainforest burning is one of the greatest contributors to the Greenhouse Effect.
What Can You Do?
One big way to help is to cut down on the use of energy. Every time you turn on the lights, open the refrigerator, turn on the heat, or take a ride in the car, you are using energy--electricity, gasoline, and natural gas, for example. The power plants that generate the electricity and the automobile engines that burn gasoline all create vast amounts of CO2.
Face-to-Face, Phone or E-mail?
The empirical study of how communications media affects individuals' definitions of the negotiation, especially in an era of expanding communications possibilities, is also drawing the interest of researchers. Should you meet face-to-face, bargain by phone or resort to e-mail? The answer, researchers say, is, it depends.
"The technology we use to negotiate affects our definition of the negotiation game and the behavior deemed appropriate for the interaction," write Bazerman, Valley et al.
Generally, face-to-face meetings foster rapport and offer fewer openings for misunderstanding and deceit. If both parties are already familiar to each other, however, face-to-face meetings may not be necessary. And if tensions are already high, then negotiating by phone may be the best choice, so as to reduce the possibility of pressure tactics.
E-mail is a tricky new area. Since e-mail lacks what researchers call social context cues, it allows more "talk time" for all, and this dimension of egalitarianism may make for a more fruitful exchange. There is a downside, though, because e-mail also seems to make people less inhibited in a negotiation scenario. If the negotiation is already tense, this lack of inhibition can make a bad situation worse.
One study found, for example, that among 24 four-person decision making groups interacting via computer, there were 102 instances of rude or impulsive behavior. Another 24 groups that interacted in person yielded only 12 remarks of that nature.
Crossing Cultures
Negotiating across cultures is cited in the article as being "akin to a dance in which one person does a waltz and another a tango." So what can negotiators do to make the process a little more graceful?
The group outlines recent experiments that focus on two areas: differences in the negotiation game between cultures, and how negotiators might change their game (or even their mental models) to bring about better negotiation.
In the first area, research has focused most actively on the cultural dimension referred to as "individualism-collectivism." This research has revealed, for instance, that negotiators from certain cultures—i.e. United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands—seem more concerned with maintaining individual rights, while others—from Colombia, Pakistan, Taiwan, for example—focus more on preserving relationships. The first group is more likely to resort to competition and problem solving in the negotiation, while the second prefers more indirect means of arriving at a solution.
Less research attention to date has addressed three other important dimensions of cross-cultural interaction. These include power distance (how social hierarchies affect negotiation), context of communication (the degree to which messages inherit meaning from the setting in which they are delivered), and different conceptions of time (whether negotiators from certain cultures prefer to handle issues in a sequential or simultaneous fashion).
Other research suggests that negotiators might deliberately change the negotiation game across cultures, either by transcending their own cultural background or by having opponents jointly follow the culture with which both negotiators are most familiar. While these are reasonable ideas in theory, the jury is still out on whether or not they are viable for the typical negotiator.
Negotiation with More Than Two Players
As the number of parties in a negotiation increases, the complexity of the dispute expands rapidly. New research is studying how this complexity affects the negotiation and suggests ways to transcend the confusion.
Negotiators might make the problem work better for everyone by applying certain rules, such as controlling participants' opportunities to speak or specifying how the group will make a decision (via majority rule, unanimity, etc). Many of these methods, however, also place constraints on the negotiation since they prevent people from learning enough about each other's interests to strive for the best possible outcome.
Experiments also indicate, however, that negotiating teams can have distinct advantages, including enhanced capability to exchange information and generate high quality ideas.
A Sub-Field No Longer
As laboratory researchers, write Bazerman, Valley, Curhan and Moore, they are "sympathetic to the constraints of the laboratory methodology" and cognizant of how important it can be to understand how their participants redefine the game.
"Most negotiation experiments are easiest to create when it is in the power of the researcher to specify the game," the group writes. "Unfortunately, this researcher specification may have inhibited the study of how negotiators psychologically define the game."
The psychological study of negotiation, once a mere sub-field of social psychology, can now draw on a wealth of work throughout many different segments of psychology: social psychology, cognitive psychology, behavior decision research, and clinical psychology. It may well also benefit from preliminary studies in how physiological factors can affect negotiation.
As the group points out in their conclusion, "We hope that these multiple lenses can create a more unified understanding, so that psychology can help the world overcome barriers to effective negotiation behavior."
"The technology we use to negotiate affects our definition of the negotiation game and the behavior deemed appropriate for the interaction," write Bazerman, Valley et al.
Generally, face-to-face meetings foster rapport and offer fewer openings for misunderstanding and deceit. If both parties are already familiar to each other, however, face-to-face meetings may not be necessary. And if tensions are already high, then negotiating by phone may be the best choice, so as to reduce the possibility of pressure tactics.
E-mail is a tricky new area. Since e-mail lacks what researchers call social context cues, it allows more "talk time" for all, and this dimension of egalitarianism may make for a more fruitful exchange. There is a downside, though, because e-mail also seems to make people less inhibited in a negotiation scenario. If the negotiation is already tense, this lack of inhibition can make a bad situation worse.
One study found, for example, that among 24 four-person decision making groups interacting via computer, there were 102 instances of rude or impulsive behavior. Another 24 groups that interacted in person yielded only 12 remarks of that nature.
Crossing Cultures
Negotiating across cultures is cited in the article as being "akin to a dance in which one person does a waltz and another a tango." So what can negotiators do to make the process a little more graceful?
The group outlines recent experiments that focus on two areas: differences in the negotiation game between cultures, and how negotiators might change their game (or even their mental models) to bring about better negotiation.
In the first area, research has focused most actively on the cultural dimension referred to as "individualism-collectivism." This research has revealed, for instance, that negotiators from certain cultures—i.e. United States, Great Britain, the Netherlands—seem more concerned with maintaining individual rights, while others—from Colombia, Pakistan, Taiwan, for example—focus more on preserving relationships. The first group is more likely to resort to competition and problem solving in the negotiation, while the second prefers more indirect means of arriving at a solution.
Less research attention to date has addressed three other important dimensions of cross-cultural interaction. These include power distance (how social hierarchies affect negotiation), context of communication (the degree to which messages inherit meaning from the setting in which they are delivered), and different conceptions of time (whether negotiators from certain cultures prefer to handle issues in a sequential or simultaneous fashion).
Other research suggests that negotiators might deliberately change the negotiation game across cultures, either by transcending their own cultural background or by having opponents jointly follow the culture with which both negotiators are most familiar. While these are reasonable ideas in theory, the jury is still out on whether or not they are viable for the typical negotiator.
Negotiation with More Than Two Players
As the number of parties in a negotiation increases, the complexity of the dispute expands rapidly. New research is studying how this complexity affects the negotiation and suggests ways to transcend the confusion.
Negotiators might make the problem work better for everyone by applying certain rules, such as controlling participants' opportunities to speak or specifying how the group will make a decision (via majority rule, unanimity, etc). Many of these methods, however, also place constraints on the negotiation since they prevent people from learning enough about each other's interests to strive for the best possible outcome.
Experiments also indicate, however, that negotiating teams can have distinct advantages, including enhanced capability to exchange information and generate high quality ideas.
A Sub-Field No Longer
As laboratory researchers, write Bazerman, Valley, Curhan and Moore, they are "sympathetic to the constraints of the laboratory methodology" and cognizant of how important it can be to understand how their participants redefine the game.
"Most negotiation experiments are easiest to create when it is in the power of the researcher to specify the game," the group writes. "Unfortunately, this researcher specification may have inhibited the study of how negotiators psychologically define the game."
The psychological study of negotiation, once a mere sub-field of social psychology, can now draw on a wealth of work throughout many different segments of psychology: social psychology, cognitive psychology, behavior decision research, and clinical psychology. It may well also benefit from preliminary studies in how physiological factors can affect negotiation.
As the group points out in their conclusion, "We hope that these multiple lenses can create a more unified understanding, so that psychology can help the world overcome barriers to effective negotiation behavior."
The Virtual Reality Environment
Other sensory output from the VE system should adjust in real time as a user explores the environment. If the environment incorporates 3-D sound, the user must be convinced that the sound’s orientation shifts in a natural way as he maneuvers through the environment. Sensory stimulation must be consistent if a user is to feel immersed within a VE. If the VE shows a perfectly still scene, you wouldn’t expect to feel gale-force winds. Likewise, if the VE puts you in the middle of a hurricane, you wouldn’t expect to feel a gentle breeze or detect the scent of roses.
Real Virtual Objects
Passive haptics are one way VE developers have tried to enhance interactivity. Passive haptics are real objects in a physical space that are mapped to virtual objects in a virtual space. Users wear an HMD or similar portable display while in the physical space. When they look toward the physical object, they'll see the virtual representation of it in their display. When they approach the object and try to touch it, they encounter the real object in the physical space. Anything a user does with that object in real space appears as a reflected action upon the virtual object in virtual space.
Lag time between when a user acts and when the virtual environment reflects that action is called latency. Latency usually refers to the delay between the time a user turns his head or moves his eyes and the change in the point of view, though the term can also be used for a lag in other sensory outputs. Studies with flight simulators show that humans can detect a latency of more than 50 milliseconds. When a user detects latency, it causes him to become aware of being in an artificial environment and destroys the sense of immersion.
Going for a swim
Swimming in VR systems doesn’t refer to jumping into a pool -- it describes the effect of latency within a virtual environment. If you were to look around in a VE and notice that the change in point of view was not instantaneous, you would experience swimming. The effect is distracting and can even make you experience motion sickness, called simsickness or cybersickness in VR circles.
An immersive experience suffers if a user becomes aware of the real world around him. Truly immersive experiences make the user forget his real surroundings, effectively causing the computer to become a non entity. In order to reach the goal of true immersion, developers have to come up with input methods that are more natural for users. As long as a user is aware of the interaction device, he is not truly immersed.
Real Virtual Objects
Passive haptics are one way VE developers have tried to enhance interactivity. Passive haptics are real objects in a physical space that are mapped to virtual objects in a virtual space. Users wear an HMD or similar portable display while in the physical space. When they look toward the physical object, they'll see the virtual representation of it in their display. When they approach the object and try to touch it, they encounter the real object in the physical space. Anything a user does with that object in real space appears as a reflected action upon the virtual object in virtual space.
Lag time between when a user acts and when the virtual environment reflects that action is called latency. Latency usually refers to the delay between the time a user turns his head or moves his eyes and the change in the point of view, though the term can also be used for a lag in other sensory outputs. Studies with flight simulators show that humans can detect a latency of more than 50 milliseconds. When a user detects latency, it causes him to become aware of being in an artificial environment and destroys the sense of immersion.
Going for a swim
Swimming in VR systems doesn’t refer to jumping into a pool -- it describes the effect of latency within a virtual environment. If you were to look around in a VE and notice that the change in point of view was not instantaneous, you would experience swimming. The effect is distracting and can even make you experience motion sickness, called simsickness or cybersickness in VR circles.
An immersive experience suffers if a user becomes aware of the real world around him. Truly immersive experiences make the user forget his real surroundings, effectively causing the computer to become a non entity. In order to reach the goal of true immersion, developers have to come up with input methods that are more natural for users. As long as a user is aware of the interaction device, he is not truly immersed.
The Emerging Art of Negotiation
A negotiation is rarely open-and-shut, but research is starting to reveal a number of ways that this complicated and often-volatile process might go a lot better for all concerned. HBS Professor Kathleen L. Valley, HBS Senior Research Fellow Max H. Bazerman and two colleagues point the way toward a new understanding of the psychology of negotiation.
It's easy to come up with a recipe for disaster when the subject is negotiation. As in chess, once you sit down at the table every move counts. So many factors compete to undermine an optimal settlement: the emotions of both participants; the potential for misunderstanding what could be gained (or lost); differing interpretations of what constitutes fair play.
Be it a straightforward business transaction, a divorce or an international struggle to reach a peace agreement, there's much that can go wrong.
But there's also much that can go right—or at least go better for all concerned.
Ongoing psychological research points toward new directions in the understanding of what makes a negotiation work or not work. In an article recently published in the Annual Review of Psychology, HBS Professor Kathleen L. Valley, HBS Senior Research Fellow Max H. Bazerman and their colleagues Jared R. Curhan and Don A. Moore (doctoral students at Stanford and Northwestern respectively) synthesized groundbreaking negotiation studies to date, and pinpointed five emerging areas of research which they consider critical for the future.
The psychological study of negotiation has undergone tremendous shifts in perspective over the last 30 years, they write, with these changes often occurring in tandem with broader developments in psychology and in society as a whole. Most recently, analysis has begun to look at social or personal factors against a backdrop of "rational" (or optimal) ones. While Bazerman and Valley and their colleagues herald the developments in negotiation studies, they also believe that the five emerging areas will enable researchers to comprehend—most importantly—how negotiators themselves define and create the game, both psychologically and structurally.
Learning how negotiators define the game, the group writes, "may be key to better understanding why parties do not reach agreements when we think they should."
Preconceptions Count
No one goes into a negotiation completely blind. Almost everyone who walks into a negotiation already holds a fairly strong preconception of how they expect it to go down. How such preconceptions, or what researchers call "mental models," actually control the outcome of a negotiation is one of the important new areas of investigation.
Mental models, they have found, encompass a variety of interlocking elements. These elements can include how each person understands himself or herself; how they understand their relationship with the other person as well as that person's characteristics; and what they perceive and know about the bargaining process and structure.
One area of new research into mental models is looking into how the framing of a negotiation can change the game. In one experiment, for example, it was shown that the amount of cooperation among participants was affected far more by what the game was called—whether the participants were told it was a "Community Game" or a "Wall Street Game"—than by the individual dispositions of the participants.
"Simply changing the name of the game changed the mental models the parties brought to the situation, and with it their definitions of what was acceptable or appropriate behavior," the group writes.
Other studies examine what are known as "shared mental models." In these studies, researchers analyze how the interaction between negotiators, springing from the negotiators' beliefs and preconceptions, can actually alter the game and fix its outcome.
"Ethical" Behavior
Varying interpretations of ethical standards are also tightly linked with how negotiators understand and define the game. Laboratory research on ethics in negotiation is starting to reveal, for instance, just how flexible and ambiguous such "standards" can be.
Different motivations and incentives all weigh in to alter negotiators' interpretations of ethical standards. Researchers are also discovering that people tend to see themselves as more ethical than the next person, and often justify ethically questionable behavior as self-defense. Negotiators have a hard time compromising on issues that are sacred to them, and may regard the negotiation itself as immoral. On the flip side, negotiators who declare that a topic is "sacred" and off-limits for discussion—when in fact it is not—can place unnecessary constraints on the game and on their ability to reach compromise.
It's easy to come up with a recipe for disaster when the subject is negotiation. As in chess, once you sit down at the table every move counts. So many factors compete to undermine an optimal settlement: the emotions of both participants; the potential for misunderstanding what could be gained (or lost); differing interpretations of what constitutes fair play.
Be it a straightforward business transaction, a divorce or an international struggle to reach a peace agreement, there's much that can go wrong.
But there's also much that can go right—or at least go better for all concerned.
Ongoing psychological research points toward new directions in the understanding of what makes a negotiation work or not work. In an article recently published in the Annual Review of Psychology, HBS Professor Kathleen L. Valley, HBS Senior Research Fellow Max H. Bazerman and their colleagues Jared R. Curhan and Don A. Moore (doctoral students at Stanford and Northwestern respectively) synthesized groundbreaking negotiation studies to date, and pinpointed five emerging areas of research which they consider critical for the future.
The psychological study of negotiation has undergone tremendous shifts in perspective over the last 30 years, they write, with these changes often occurring in tandem with broader developments in psychology and in society as a whole. Most recently, analysis has begun to look at social or personal factors against a backdrop of "rational" (or optimal) ones. While Bazerman and Valley and their colleagues herald the developments in negotiation studies, they also believe that the five emerging areas will enable researchers to comprehend—most importantly—how negotiators themselves define and create the game, both psychologically and structurally.
Learning how negotiators define the game, the group writes, "may be key to better understanding why parties do not reach agreements when we think they should."
Preconceptions Count
No one goes into a negotiation completely blind. Almost everyone who walks into a negotiation already holds a fairly strong preconception of how they expect it to go down. How such preconceptions, or what researchers call "mental models," actually control the outcome of a negotiation is one of the important new areas of investigation.
Mental models, they have found, encompass a variety of interlocking elements. These elements can include how each person understands himself or herself; how they understand their relationship with the other person as well as that person's characteristics; and what they perceive and know about the bargaining process and structure.
One area of new research into mental models is looking into how the framing of a negotiation can change the game. In one experiment, for example, it was shown that the amount of cooperation among participants was affected far more by what the game was called—whether the participants were told it was a "Community Game" or a "Wall Street Game"—than by the individual dispositions of the participants.
"Simply changing the name of the game changed the mental models the parties brought to the situation, and with it their definitions of what was acceptable or appropriate behavior," the group writes.
Other studies examine what are known as "shared mental models." In these studies, researchers analyze how the interaction between negotiators, springing from the negotiators' beliefs and preconceptions, can actually alter the game and fix its outcome.
"Ethical" Behavior
Varying interpretations of ethical standards are also tightly linked with how negotiators understand and define the game. Laboratory research on ethics in negotiation is starting to reveal, for instance, just how flexible and ambiguous such "standards" can be.
Different motivations and incentives all weigh in to alter negotiators' interpretations of ethical standards. Researchers are also discovering that people tend to see themselves as more ethical than the next person, and often justify ethically questionable behavior as self-defense. Negotiators have a hard time compromising on issues that are sacred to them, and may regard the negotiation itself as immoral. On the flip side, negotiators who declare that a topic is "sacred" and off-limits for discussion—when in fact it is not—can place unnecessary constraints on the game and on their ability to reach compromise.
Virtual Reality Immersion
In a virtual reality environment, a user experiences immersion, or the feeling of being inside and a part of that world. He is also able to interact with his environment in meaningful ways. The combination of a sense of immersion and interactivity is called telepresence. Computer scientist Jonathan Steuer defined it as “the extent to which one feels present in the mediated environment, rather than in the immediate physical environment.” In other words, an effective VR experience causes you to become unaware of your real surroundings and focus on your existence inside the virtual environment.
virtual reality bubble
Photo courtesy of VIRTUSPHERE
A virtual reality unit that allows the user
to move freely in any direction
Jonathan Steuer proposed two main components of immersion: depth of information and breadth of information. Depth of information refers to the amount and quality of data in the signals a user receives when interacting in a virtual environment. For the user, this could refer to a display’s resolution, the complexity of the environment’s graphics, the sophistication of the system’s audio output, et cetera. Steuer defines breadth of information as the “number of sensory dimensions simultaneously presented.” A virtual environment experience has a wide breadth of information if it stimulates all your senses. Most virtual environment experiences prioritize visual and audio components over other sensory-stimulating factors, but a growing number of scientists and engineers are looking into ways to incorporate a users’ sense of touch. Systems that give a user force feedback and touch interaction are called haptic systems.
For immersion to be effective, a user must be able to explore what appears to be a life-sized virtual environment and be able to change perspectives seamlessly. If the virtual environment consists of a single pedestal in the middle of a room, a user should be able to view the pedestal from any angle and the point of view should shift according to where the user is looking. Dr. Frederick Brooks, a pioneer in VR technology and theory, says that displays must project a frame rate of at least 20 - 30 frames per second in order to create a convincing user experience.
virtual reality bubble
Photo courtesy of VIRTUSPHERE
A virtual reality unit that allows the user
to move freely in any direction
Jonathan Steuer proposed two main components of immersion: depth of information and breadth of information. Depth of information refers to the amount and quality of data in the signals a user receives when interacting in a virtual environment. For the user, this could refer to a display’s resolution, the complexity of the environment’s graphics, the sophistication of the system’s audio output, et cetera. Steuer defines breadth of information as the “number of sensory dimensions simultaneously presented.” A virtual environment experience has a wide breadth of information if it stimulates all your senses. Most virtual environment experiences prioritize visual and audio components over other sensory-stimulating factors, but a growing number of scientists and engineers are looking into ways to incorporate a users’ sense of touch. Systems that give a user force feedback and touch interaction are called haptic systems.
For immersion to be effective, a user must be able to explore what appears to be a life-sized virtual environment and be able to change perspectives seamlessly. If the virtual environment consists of a single pedestal in the middle of a room, a user should be able to view the pedestal from any angle and the point of view should shift according to where the user is looking. Dr. Frederick Brooks, a pioneer in VR technology and theory, says that displays must project a frame rate of at least 20 - 30 frames per second in order to create a convincing user experience.
The death of Hunter S Thompson has brought a whole raft of tributes to the founder of "Gonzo journalism". But what exactly is Gonzo, where did it come
Aged just 67, the often drunken, drug-addled chronicler of the dark side of the American Dream has gone the way of all flesh, by his own hand, in the manner of his hero, Ernest Hemingway.
Obituarists from Wapping to Sydney have hailed Thompson as, among other things, "a great American", "explosive, shocking and frequently funny" and "a supernova of chaos, conspiracy theory and beautifully phrased bile".
GONZO - WHERE FROM?
Thompson credited Bill Cardosa with coining word
He said it was "some Boston word for weird, bizarre"
It possibly comes from the Italian gonzo or Spanish gonso, both meaning fool
And all have spoken of him as the inventor, and ultimate practitioner, of Gonzo journalism, that compelling and outrageous amalgam of reportage and literature, held together by an intoxicating emulsion of drink, drugs and sexual excess.
As a literary style, Gonzo has a number of roots, most notably the so-called New Journalism of the late 1950s and 60s.
Championed by Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Norman Mailer and Thompson himself, New Journalism blurred the old distinctions between journalism and creative writing.
Lasting legacy: Hunter S Thompson
It was the time of "love-ins" and "happenings", of flower children, surfers and hot-rod racers.
The tone was resoundingly colourful and experimental and, horror of horrors, the writer's own feelings and experiences often formed a cohesive part of the story.
Fellow-travellers also played a role in defining Gonzo. Most notable among these was Terry Southern, satirist and screenwriter on Dr Strangelove, Barbarella and that hippest of all hippy odysseys, Easy Rider.
Southern, whose sunglass-framed face graces the cover of the Beatles' Sgt Pepper album, was scurrilous and frequently pornographic - witness his novel, Candy - and was feted by the New York Times as "the hippest man on the planet".
But where Tom Wolfe politely declined an acid tab in his iconic Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Hunter S Thompson denied himself nothing.
Excess... and then some
As Wolfe put it: "He was something totally new in journalism and in literature."
From now on, all bets were off. The writer became the story. Structure was thrown out of the window, replaced by a shambolic, yet magical, rollercoaster ride of artless hedonism.
This from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas:
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-coloured uppers, downers, screamers, laughers and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.
Must have been one heck of a picnic.
Tom Wolfe: New Journalism's urbane paladin
The UK had, after a fashion, its own exponents of Gonzo writing, confessional scribblers fuelled by drink, terrified of women and constantly in thrall to the Siren-call of the race course and the bookie.
There was the late, lamented, Jeffrey Barnard, the Coach and Horses' own writer/boozer, and the extraordinary novelist, Julian Maclaren-Ross, the template for Anthony Powell's X Trapnel, whose warning to fellow creative drunks echoes down the years:
"Only beware of Fitzrovia," Tambi said... "It's a dangerous place, you must be careful."
"Fights with knives?"
"No, a worse danger. You might get Sohoitis you know."
"No I don't. What is it?"
"If you get Sohoitis," Tambi said very seriously, "you will stay there always day and night and get no work done ever. You have been warned."
Back in the States, writers like PJ O'Rourke took up the baton of Gonzo. His bitingly waspish works, including the groundbreaking Holidays in Hell, thrilled a generation.
New horizons
Today, though, even O'Rourke looks neutered. The Republican Party Animal espouses the virtues of British Airways in a series of anodyne, if well remunerated, television adverts.
But 33 years after Fear and Loathing, and with technology opening-up new avenues of expression, Gonzo journalism has gone from strength to strength.
Weblogs allow writers unfiltered access to the internet and some bloggers, like the celebrated London call-girl Belle de Jour, have taken the process full-circle, pulling-in lucrative publishing deals.
Films like Supersize Me embrace the Gonzo spirit
On the big screen, Michael Moore is pure Gonzo. Bowling for Columbine, for instance, featured Moore as director, star and protagonist, successfully campaigning for K-mart to remove bullets from its shelves.
More recently, satire, experimentation and polemic came together in Morgan Spurlock's chillingly hilarious Super Size Me, in which he ate nothing but McDonald's products for a month, with predictable consequences.
But not everyone is taken with the idea of journalist as agent provocateur.
The highly-rated US blogger Billmon Billmon recently voiced his disillusion at the genre: "What began as a spontaneous eruption of populist creativity is on the verge of being absorbed by the media-industrial complex it claims to despise."
The truth of the matter may well be that, in its purest form, the only real Gonzo journalist was Dr Hunter S Thompson himself.
To the end, more extreme than the rest, he died, as he had lived; recklessly and defiantly unrepentant.
Let the final words, then, be his.
If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today.
Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.
Obituarists from Wapping to Sydney have hailed Thompson as, among other things, "a great American", "explosive, shocking and frequently funny" and "a supernova of chaos, conspiracy theory and beautifully phrased bile".
GONZO - WHERE FROM?
Thompson credited Bill Cardosa with coining word
He said it was "some Boston word for weird, bizarre"
It possibly comes from the Italian gonzo or Spanish gonso, both meaning fool
And all have spoken of him as the inventor, and ultimate practitioner, of Gonzo journalism, that compelling and outrageous amalgam of reportage and literature, held together by an intoxicating emulsion of drink, drugs and sexual excess.
As a literary style, Gonzo has a number of roots, most notably the so-called New Journalism of the late 1950s and 60s.
Championed by Tom Wolfe, Truman Capote, Norman Mailer and Thompson himself, New Journalism blurred the old distinctions between journalism and creative writing.
Lasting legacy: Hunter S Thompson
It was the time of "love-ins" and "happenings", of flower children, surfers and hot-rod racers.
The tone was resoundingly colourful and experimental and, horror of horrors, the writer's own feelings and experiences often formed a cohesive part of the story.
Fellow-travellers also played a role in defining Gonzo. Most notable among these was Terry Southern, satirist and screenwriter on Dr Strangelove, Barbarella and that hippest of all hippy odysseys, Easy Rider.
Southern, whose sunglass-framed face graces the cover of the Beatles' Sgt Pepper album, was scurrilous and frequently pornographic - witness his novel, Candy - and was feted by the New York Times as "the hippest man on the planet".
But where Tom Wolfe politely declined an acid tab in his iconic Electric Kool-Aid Acid Test, Hunter S Thompson denied himself nothing.
Excess... and then some
As Wolfe put it: "He was something totally new in journalism and in literature."
From now on, all bets were off. The writer became the story. Structure was thrown out of the window, replaced by a shambolic, yet magical, rollercoaster ride of artless hedonism.
This from Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas:
We had two bags of grass, seventy-five pellets of mescaline, five sheets of high-powered blotter acid, a salt shaker half full of cocaine, and a whole galaxy of multi-coloured uppers, downers, screamers, laughers and also a quart of tequila, a quart of rum, a case of Budweiser, a pint of raw ether and two dozen amyls.
Must have been one heck of a picnic.
Tom Wolfe: New Journalism's urbane paladin
The UK had, after a fashion, its own exponents of Gonzo writing, confessional scribblers fuelled by drink, terrified of women and constantly in thrall to the Siren-call of the race course and the bookie.
There was the late, lamented, Jeffrey Barnard, the Coach and Horses' own writer/boozer, and the extraordinary novelist, Julian Maclaren-Ross, the template for Anthony Powell's X Trapnel, whose warning to fellow creative drunks echoes down the years:
"Only beware of Fitzrovia," Tambi said... "It's a dangerous place, you must be careful."
"Fights with knives?"
"No, a worse danger. You might get Sohoitis you know."
"No I don't. What is it?"
"If you get Sohoitis," Tambi said very seriously, "you will stay there always day and night and get no work done ever. You have been warned."
Back in the States, writers like PJ O'Rourke took up the baton of Gonzo. His bitingly waspish works, including the groundbreaking Holidays in Hell, thrilled a generation.
New horizons
Today, though, even O'Rourke looks neutered. The Republican Party Animal espouses the virtues of British Airways in a series of anodyne, if well remunerated, television adverts.
But 33 years after Fear and Loathing, and with technology opening-up new avenues of expression, Gonzo journalism has gone from strength to strength.
Weblogs allow writers unfiltered access to the internet and some bloggers, like the celebrated London call-girl Belle de Jour, have taken the process full-circle, pulling-in lucrative publishing deals.
Films like Supersize Me embrace the Gonzo spirit
On the big screen, Michael Moore is pure Gonzo. Bowling for Columbine, for instance, featured Moore as director, star and protagonist, successfully campaigning for K-mart to remove bullets from its shelves.
More recently, satire, experimentation and polemic came together in Morgan Spurlock's chillingly hilarious Super Size Me, in which he ate nothing but McDonald's products for a month, with predictable consequences.
But not everyone is taken with the idea of journalist as agent provocateur.
The highly-rated US blogger Billmon Billmon recently voiced his disillusion at the genre: "What began as a spontaneous eruption of populist creativity is on the verge of being absorbed by the media-industrial complex it claims to despise."
The truth of the matter may well be that, in its purest form, the only real Gonzo journalist was Dr Hunter S Thompson himself.
To the end, more extreme than the rest, he died, as he had lived; recklessly and defiantly unrepentant.
Let the final words, then, be his.
If I'd written all the truth I knew for the past ten years, about 600 people - including me - would be rotting in prison cells from Rio to Seattle today.
Absolute truth is a very rare and dangerous commodity in the context of professional journalism.
How Virtual Reality works?
What do you think of when you hear the words virtual reality (VR)? Do you imagine someone wearing a clunky helmet attached to a computer with a thick cable? Do visions of crudely rendered pterodactyls haunt you? Do you think of Neo and Morpheus traipsing about the Matrix? Or do you wince at the term, wishing it would just go away?
virtual reality cave display
Photo courtesy of Dave Pape
A virtual reality CAVE display projecting images onto the floor, walls and ceiling to provide full immersion.
If the last applies to you, you're likely a computer scientist or engineer, many of whom now avoid the words virtual reality even while they work on technologies most of us associate with VR. Today, you're more likely to hear someone use the words virtual environment (VE) to refer to what the public knows as virtual reality. We'll use the terms interchangeably in this article.
What's in a name?
Virtual reality has gone by many other names besides virtual environments. Other terms for virtual reality include cyberspace (a word invented by science fiction author William Gibson), artificial reality, augmented reality and telepresence.
Naming discrepancies aside, the concept remains the same - using computer technology to create a simulated, three-dimensional world that a user can manipulate and explore while feeling as if he were in that world. Scientists, theorists and engineers have designed dozens of devices and applications to achieve this goal. Opinions differ on what exactly constitutes a true VR experience, but in general it should include:
* Three-dimensional images that appear to be life-sized from the perspective of the user
* The ability to track a user's motions, particularly his head and eye movements, and correspondingly adjust the images on the user's display to reflect the change in perspective
In this article, we'll look at the defining characteristics of VR, some of the technology used in VR systems, a few of its applications, some concerns about virtual reality and a brief history of the discipline. In the next section, we'll look at how experts define virtual environments, starting with immersion.
virtual reality cave display
Photo courtesy of Dave Pape
A virtual reality CAVE display projecting images onto the floor, walls and ceiling to provide full immersion.
If the last applies to you, you're likely a computer scientist or engineer, many of whom now avoid the words virtual reality even while they work on technologies most of us associate with VR. Today, you're more likely to hear someone use the words virtual environment (VE) to refer to what the public knows as virtual reality. We'll use the terms interchangeably in this article.
What's in a name?
Virtual reality has gone by many other names besides virtual environments. Other terms for virtual reality include cyberspace (a word invented by science fiction author William Gibson), artificial reality, augmented reality and telepresence.
Naming discrepancies aside, the concept remains the same - using computer technology to create a simulated, three-dimensional world that a user can manipulate and explore while feeling as if he were in that world. Scientists, theorists and engineers have designed dozens of devices and applications to achieve this goal. Opinions differ on what exactly constitutes a true VR experience, but in general it should include:
* Three-dimensional images that appear to be life-sized from the perspective of the user
* The ability to track a user's motions, particularly his head and eye movements, and correspondingly adjust the images on the user's display to reflect the change in perspective
In this article, we'll look at the defining characteristics of VR, some of the technology used in VR systems, a few of its applications, some concerns about virtual reality and a brief history of the discipline. In the next section, we'll look at how experts define virtual environments, starting with immersion.
Langganan:
Postingan (Atom)
