Exactly One Optimal Technology Impetus

[CharonY]

Well, these would include at minimum: diabetes, stroke, dementia, cardiovascular diseases, resistant bacteria will create a comeback for infectious diseases. On top of that especially low-income groups suffer disproportionately from malnutrition, which may act as an amplifier of other conditions.

You would really an exceptionally narrow mindset to conclude that the ability to watch movies must be on top of our priorities.

Edited June 10, 2016 by CharonY

[TakenItSeriously]

Actually the light in question has more to do with the high frequency, high energy, blue light that can cause eye strain over time which I tend to suffer from at the end of very long sessions but then I'm older and geekier than most.

 

Twenty years ago, I'm sure I would have thought it was all just a gimmick to sell stuff like cheap glasses with yellow lenses. It's still true and they are just cheap glasses with yellow lenses but there is at least some kernel of truth behind them.

 

There is often a separate setting for adjusting a blue light filter that I find helps more than just turning down the intensity.

 

If you are reading a kindle or a book, reflected light is generally not as bad because the pages are often not that bright a white or have a yellowish tint to them, so the reflected light is a lower frequency light.

 

Also, reading using incandescent bulbs helps a great deal except they are so damn inefficient. When I used an old incandescent bulb one time because that's all I had left as a replacement bulb I was amazed at how easy on the eyes it was compared to the newer bulbs.

[StringJunky]

Actually the light in question has more to do with the high frequency, high energy, blue light that can cause eye strain over time which I tend to suffer from at the end of very long sessions but then I'm older and geekier than most.

 

Twenty years ago, I'm sure I would have thought it was all just a gimmick to sell stuff like cheap glasses with yellow lenses. It's still true and they are just cheap glasses with yellow lenses but there is at least some kernel of truth behind them.

 

There is often a separate setting for adjusting a blue light filter that I find helps more than just turning down the intensity.

 

If you are reading a kindle or a book, reflected light is generally not as bad because the pages are often not that bright a white or have a yellowish tint to them, so the reflected light is a lower frequency light.

 

Also, reading using incandescent bulbs helps a great deal except they are so damn inefficient. When I used an old incandescent bulb one time because that's all I had left as a replacement bulb I was amazed at how easy on the eyes it was compared to the newer bulbs.

It is possible to change the colour temperature of PC screens etc

[TakenItSeriously]

It is possible to change the colour temperature of PC screens etc

Good point, I was referencing mobile devices, but changing the monitor settings hue or tint to warmer colors should reduce eye strain for PC's which I hadn't thought of doing. Possibly some graphics driver settings could work as well.

Edited June 11, 2016 by TakenItSeriously

[StringJunky]

Good point, I was referencing mobile devices, but changing the monitor settings hue or tint to warmer colors should reduce eye strain for PC's which I hadn't thought of doing. Possibly some graphics driver settings could work as well.

I use this and you can get it for mobiles as well. It's very good and has made a noticeable difference to eye comfort, especially at night. Excess blue light balance in the wrong part of the day can mess up your circadian rythmn (sleep/alert pattern) as well as strain your eyes in the absence of natural ambient light.

 

I think at night time your domestic lighting will be much warmer in balance compared to an uncompensated device screen and looking away and into the screen continually through the evening probably forces your eyes to keep adapting chromatically, leading to strain as well as confusing your brain as to when it should rest or be alert.

 

https://justgetflux.com/

Edited June 11, 2016 by StringJunky

[B. John Jones]

I love it when people get anecdote and evidence confused.

 

Wait, no I don't.

 

Re light intensity.

 

If reflected light is supposedly less harmful than projected light, then why does it make me cry to look at light reflected on the surface of a lake, but I'm fine when I watch my TV? I'll answer my own question (with apologies to the original Clinton campaign), "It's the intensity, stupid."

 

Your eye is really just a fancy camera lens. It honestly doesn't care where the light is coming from - light is light, as someone so astutely posted earlier.

 

Of course, since convention accepts, to date, that "light is light," as you've attested, I guess then the majority has it! No need for measurements.

[Strange]

 

Of course, since convention accepts, to date, that "light is light," as you've attested, I guess then the majority has it! No need for measurements.

 

Do you have any measurements that show a quantitative difference in the effects of light from a backlit display versus a reflective display?

[B. John Jones]

 

Cancer is much longer term than one organism. The cure is much longer term. There's no treatment of one organism that will cure cancer in the same organism. It's generational, and the cure is more perfect nutrition.

 

What evidence do you have for this?

 

 

People have been eating fermented and cultured foods for millennia. Cancer is still around.

 

 

So no evidence, then.

 

The point I was making is that health in general is best served through good food choices. But to answer your question about cancer being multi-generational and the cure likewise, the evidence is seen if the fact that 1) medicine has been "attacking" cancerous disease since antiquity and has never found "cures." 2) All long-term human health and wellness concerns are concentrated in the blood. Nutrients in the blood determine the health of the human body. Food is the primary source for those nutrients. I shouldn't have to prove that. And it's pretty sad if science demands evidence for something as night and day.

 

Varieties (not quantities) of foods (nor food groups) is my personal charge for good nutrition and wellness.

Edited June 15, 2016 by B. John Jones

[Strange]

The point I was making is that health in general is best served through good food choices.

 

And, again, please provide some evidence to support this claim.

 

 

But to answer your question about cancer being multi-generational and the cure likewise, the evidence is seen if the fact that 1) medicine has been "attacking" cancerous disease since antiquity and has never found "cures."

 

Many types of cancer can now be successfully treated so this is clearly wrong. Many can be (largely) prevented by modern medecine.

 

 

2) All long-term human health and wellness concerns are concentrated in the blood.

 

And, again, please provide some evidence to support this claim.

 

 

Nutrients in the blood determine the health of the human body. Food is the primary source for those nutrients. I shouldn't have to prove that. And it's pretty sad if science demands evidence for something as night and day.

 

Yes, good nutrition is required for health. Bad nutrition can cause disease. But it is not a logical argument to assume that good nutrition can cure disease (when that disease is not caused by nutritional problems).

 

This is an example of the logical fallacy of affirming the consequent.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent

[uncool]

Okay, after this, to bed.

 

You had mentioned that much, apparently more significant work, had been done towards improvements in mass-storage capacities in computing. I'm suggesting that a slice of that time could have, and should have been devoted to more optimal display technologies, but was neglected, probably because storage seemed far more "profitable."

I'm saying that much of that 50 years were necessary for there to be anything useful on those screens in the first place. The fact that we are reading books at all on these is a stupendously amazing thing that would have been completely unreasonable - pure science fiction - 50 years ago. Would you have us focus on nasal safety now, now that we are just beginning to explore virtual reality?