OSDev.org

Hi,

For TV (and movies, etc) there's a test called the "Harding FPA Test", which assesses the potential to trigger seizures in people with photosensitive epilepsy. This test is "adequate" (ie. not perfect) and is considered an industry standard. There's also a good amount of research on the triggers for photosensitive epilepsy that's easily obtainable.

Anyone with photosensitive epilepsy that's using my OS (in 1000 years time) will be able to click on the "I have photosensitive epilepsy" button in their profile (which will be next to the "I'm colour-blind and have trouble seeing red/green/blue/whatever" buttons). With this feature enabled the video driver will forcibly prevent large areas of flashing pixels from being seen by limiting the rate at which areas of pixels can change intensity and red content. Basically, if anything causes an area to flash (either deliberately or accidentally) the video driver will do a kind of motion blur on it.

Note: A long time ago I caused my uncle to have a seizure. It was entirely accidental - a simple single line of Commodore64 BASIC (something like "for c = 0 to 99999; poke 54321, c; next"). He said something about it smelling like oranges and left the room, and I didn't find out why until later. I've been fairly cautious since...


Cheers,

Brendan

Well, for a somewhat limited group of people it would be a nice feature

I personally hate those:

THIS IS NOT A JOKE!
YOU ARE THE 947.283.752.324th PERSON TO VIEW THIS ADD!

CLICK HERE TO CLAME YOUR PRISE!

FLASH FLASH FLASH

I HATE THOSE!!!!
and on a side-topic previously discussed, I to severely doubt that anyone will be physically harming (or anything for that matter) someone else in these forums as it would be an expensive @$$ kicking and a rather childish one. But with that said, is @$$ kicking really necessary when there are so many malicious internet-enabled ways to hurt someone. =)

That does sound like a nice feature for people who it affects.

I would like to look at speech support for the visually impaired from fairly early on - if only sound cards conformed to a VESA like specification (that was actually used - yes, I am aware of the VBE/AI).

Adam

01000101 wrote:is @$$ kicking really necessary when there are so many malicious internet-enabled ways to hurt someone. =)

Depends how serious @$$ wooping you're talking about.

lol, I don't know, I rationalize too much for that.

If I truely loathed someone online to the point of injuring them, I would find it much more satisfying to give them a trojan of some sort. I don't think I would be able to kick someones @$$ over an online dispute, the argument would probably make me laugh too much.

[edit]why fight physically when the dispute is online? why not just wage battle online?[/edit]

As i said, it depends on how serious @$$ wooping we are talking about.
It would fx. be difficult to ambutate someone right arm only using a computer and the internet. I wouldn't be surprised if it could be done though.

On another topic I find it hilarious that A S S converted in to @$$, any specific reason for this?

why fight physically when the dispute is online? why not just wage battle online?

Because it would just prolong the dispute - physical battles are easier to settle, and teach a better lesson to both parties

On another topic I find it hilarious that A S S converted in to @$$, any specific reason for this?

Maybe the admin was being an @$$