SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Microcap & Penny Stocks : Microvision (MVIS)
MVIS 1.010+7.0%1:14 PM EST

 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Zeev Hed who wrote (2205)4/7/1999 4:44:00 PM
From: Josef Svejk  Read Replies (2) of 7720
 
Humble rewind, All, seems my "sloppy is as sloppy does" buddy Zeev has been way too quiet regarding his Heds up review of the patents.

Zeev, bud, try this at home:

The claim to which you refer highlights a certain aspect of vision relating to depth cues. The most commonly known depth cue is the one described by you and which is commonly referred to as "parallax." That is, the brain interprets the difference in input from the two eyes (e.g., convergence) to get an indication of depth. However, you fail to note that there are other vision responses that can be very important. The one highlighted by that patent claim, which you pooped on (see your note to which I am responding). is commonly called "accommodation." That is, a single eye has a depth response. (If you don't like the proof below, you could look up the general idea of accommodation: KINGSLAKE, II Applied Optics and Engineering, 15-17.)

Humans can use this vision response for depth cues (e.g., so that a one eyed person can catch a ball).

Here's how you can prove to yourself that accommodation exists. Face the wall and close one eye. Then, pull out your share of MVIS (or MVISW) and hold it between your open eye and the wall. Direct your focus at the share. Switch your focus to the wall. Repeat. You should see that you can differentiate between the different depths with a single eye.

Now for test number two. This one takes a little practice, since you are obviously not used to operating without parallax. Close one eye. Take a small object (e.g., a MVIS/W share crumbled into a ball) and toss it a foot or so in the air and catch it. Repeat, but not straight up. Instead make it come down a little bit away from you or a little bit closer to you. As you practice, you'll get pretty good at judging the distance with a single eye.

Thusly, you have proved to yourself that the pretense for calling the claim "inoperative" is itself inoperative. To paraphrase, "You CAN simply create depth perception in a single eye."

Duh.

Cheers,

Svejk
proofsheet.com

P.S. Dat's why one eyed people drive, Zeev.

P.P.S. Fu¢k yes it's form Full Metal Jacket, V., for a reason! ;-)
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext