Using the infrared camera in the Wii remote and a head mounted sensor bar (two IR LEDs), you can accurately track the location of your head and render view dependent images on the screen. This effectively transforms your display into a portal to a virtual environment. The display properly reacts to head and body movement as if it were a real window creating a realistic illusion of depth and space.
“First there are ‘proponents’, […] single-track obsessives […].
‘Anomalists’ […] seek to enhance scientific knowledge. Confronted with puzzling phenomena, they are willing to take an interdisciplinary approach, and realise that what is under investigation may not fit existing paradigms. They apply Occam’s razor, and try to test claims using existing methodology. They put the burden of proof on the claimant.
A third category, ‘mystery-mongers’, are ‘fundamentally unscientific’. They don’t really want explanations. What they are sceptical about is the scientific consensus. […]
Then there is another category, the large and familiar category of ‘scoffers’. Scoffers begin by assuming that anomalous phenomena are invalid. They are mentally rigid and doctrinaire, and insist that science – that wilting flower – is under threat from those who are not as good as they are at critical thinking […]
The crudity of public discourse means that the mystery-mongers and the scoffers get all the attention. The anomalists have history on their side“
What had resident AGW alarmist, I mean “environmental correspondent” Mark Lynas to say when New Statesman dared provide space to the skeptical words of award-winning science journalist and writer David Whitehouse?
Whitehouse got it wrong – completely wrong [hopefully he managed to get his data right? or his surname]
you won’t, by definition, see climate change from one year to the next – or even necessarily from one decade to the next…Note, however, the general direction of the red line over this quarter-century period [translation: “if it goes down it’s too short a period. if it goes up, it’s the right time window to see climate change“]
Whitehouse, and his fellow contrarians, are going to have to do a lot better than this if they want to disprove (or even dispute) the accepted theory of greenhouse warming. [translation: “I am not going to listen to anybody thinking different than I do“]
Newspapers and magazines have a difficult job of trying, often with limited time and information, to sort out truth from fiction on a daily basis [translation: “if it’s contrary to what I believe, it’s fiction“]
I give contrarians, or sceptics, or deniers (call them what you will) short shrift [translation: “I have so much faith in global warming, I cannot tell the difference between a sceptic and a denier…let’s offend the whole lot…“]
as a close follower of the scientific debate on this subject I can state without doubt that there is no dispute whatsoever within the expert community as to the reality or causes of manmade global warming [how can anybody seriously believe “manmade global warming” is the most solid area of Science in the history of humanity, it escapes me…]
Good journalism should never exclude legitimate voices from a debate of public interest, but it also needs to distinguish between carefully-checked fact and distorted misrepresentations in complex and divisive areas like this [translation: “I will decide what should and should not be debated“]
There definitely is one thing that distinguishes global warmers from sceptics. Sceptics do not get upset when something contrary to their belief is aired.