Comments on: CNN Holograms? Not really.

By: skullsinthestars

skullsinthestars — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 19:41:47 +0000

Tom wrote: “There’s always room for one more post on any topic.”

Does this mean I have to take back my curse?

By: Jonathan Bush

Jonathan Bush — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 15:14:18 +0000

LOl, this is so fake, CNN should get slammed for creating a hoax then touting it as real and “amazing”. They actually did a story about it! Talking about the Hologram is poor journalism; not only are they loving the smell off their own shit but they are putting a positive spin on the video responses where as most of them are actually negative and say that it is fake. I will not watch CNN anymore for they are such douche bags.

By: Personal Demon

Personal Demon — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 22:01:27 +0000

That previous value was meant to be 7 Watts/mm^2, not m^2.

By: Tom

Tom — Sat, 08 Nov 2008 16:49:13 +0000

Evidence that blogs are bosonic. There’s always room for one more post on any topic.

By: skullsinthestars

skullsinthestars — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 23:52:06 +0000

PD: You think everything can be solved with lasers!

By: Personal Demon

Personal Demon — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:26:17 +0000

Hmm… that emoticon didn’t work. Try this one:

By: Personal Demon

Personal Demon — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 20:25:43 +0000

SitS wrote: You’d be amazed at what people can do with a single Bic pen…

And you, sir, might be amazed at what 7 watts/m^2 of coherent radiation can do to people. :->

By: This is why CNN’s Hologram was a Good Investment « The Full Catastrophe

Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:24:36 +0000

[...] CNN Holograms? Not really. [...]

By: skullsinthestars

skullsinthestars — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 19:20:24 +0000

PD: Maybe you should fire off an angry holograph to the IHMA…

you wrote: “The pen may be mightier than the sword, but I don’t think it’s mightier than my krypton ion laser.”

Have you followed the link at my previous post? You’d be amazed at what people can do with a single Bic pen…

By: Personal Demon

Personal Demon — Fri, 07 Nov 2008 18:01:10 +0000

I've been fighting a losing battle on the misuse of the term "hologram" for years. (The only scientific paper that I have ever outright rejected was on a technology utterly unrelated to holography that used the word "holography" in its title.) Part of the problem for holographers is that we've been far too polite. Here's the issue if you think about it linguistically: If photography produces a photograph, then one would logically conclude that the product of holography should be called a "holograph", right? Unfortunately the word holograph was already taken. Some bastard in 1660 coined the term to describe a document that is written in the original authors own hand. Why should modern holographers continue to be subservient to a phrase from four centuries ago? If someone is going to take our word, why don't we just take someone else's? Nowadays the only people who use the term "holograph" with respect to handwritten documents are literature academics. The pen may be mightier than the sword, but I don't think it's mightier than my krypton ion laser.