Browsing the Body 107
ColdWetDog writes "Google Labs has an interesting new line of business — human anatomy. The Google Body Browser is a 3D representation of the major parts of the human body. Based on the well known and very expensive Zygote 3D artwork, you can zoom in, rotate, view the various organ systems (bone, internal organs, nerves) in various states of transparency. Very much like Google Earth in both execution and concept. Written with HTML5, it requires WebGL to work. The Firefox 4 beta seems to work fine. Google, of course, recommends Chrome."
This is where I hate Apple (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Why, then, not enlighten us with this information?
Re: (Score:2)
The bodybrowser page links you to http://khronos.org/webgl/wiki/Getting_a_WebGL_Implementation [khronos.org] which gives you WebGL information and, for Safari, links you to http://nightly.webkit.org/ [webkit.org]
Re: (Score:1)
Re:This is where I hate Apple (Score:5, Informative)
Why, then, not enlighten us with this information?
Send me teh codz?
Actually it doesn't even work in the standard Safari. It looks like you have to also down load the nightly build from webkit.org [webkit.org] and then run "defaults write com.apple.Safari WebKitWebGLEnabled -bool YES"
So I should apologize to Apple in *this* case
Re:This is where I hate Apple (Score:5, Insightful)
This is because WebGL is an experimental feature. It is not meant to be easy or obvious! WebGL is not read for general use yet.
Re: (Score:3)
Safari is a supported browser on Snow Leopard *after* you open Terminal and run a command line to set a flag in the (normally not seen) configuration file. Totally obvious - NOT.
WebGL [khronos.org] is not part of the standard Safari on Snow Leopard. It's still in beta and you have to grab the nightly builds [webkit.org], THEN set the default com.apple.Safari WebKitWebGLEnabled to YES.
You're on the cutting edge man, don't expect it to be automatic just yet. If you take a look at the WebGL spec that I linked you'll see that it says "Working Draft", not a released spec. WebGL is not yet ready for the masses who don't know how to set a hidden default.
Re: (Score:2)
There isn't a single released browser (according to the page) that supports it. WebGL isn't baked yet.
"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
You need the newest version. Even then, it takes a while.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Only the beta works, the latest stable still has no WebGL support.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Hey Google, should I use IE to view the Google Body Browser? Wonder if Windows Live [live.com] would ever recommend I use Chrome...
Re: (Score:3)
To use Body Browser, you'll need a Web browser with WebGL support. Click here to get the new Google Chrome beta, or visit khronos.org for more choices.
I opted for the Canary build of Chrome [google.com] since it allows parallel installation with the current Chrome release. Canary build loads the WebGL Body Browser just fine
Re: (Score:2)
Google chrome beta install workaround (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I really, really don't like the recent idea that websites and software should be in beta for years. Next thing you know we'll see products and cars and food in "beta" and when something goes wrong manufactures will say "well, it was in beta..."
Re: (Score:2)
The hate because beta is suppose to mean the software is still being tested, it's not ready for release to the general public, you're not suppose to run around and recommend everyone in the world download it and use it.
Isn't that exactly what this body browser is? A piece of software that's still in beta? Part of the "Google Labs" family of experimental software? Hence the 'Beta' at the top of the page?
You won't see Google touting this as a practical application (like Chrome or Earth) to the general public quite a while. Part of the reason it's publicly accessible now is to demonstrate WebGL, which in itself is not ready for production use. The only reason we're seeing this demonstration here is because new, up-and-coming
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1. Opera doesn't have support for WebGL. I just installed their Opera 11 and it's not mentioned.
2. Opera works very well and I use it daily as my primary browser. Has many new features and many older features that have been adopted by other browsers.
3. Opera was doing scaling graphics back in the 90's when everyone else was stuck with WYSIWYG..
Not getting into a browser war here. I use Opera, Firefox, Chrome, and IE in various sistuations. Just countering your spread
Re: (Score:1)
Offtopic, but what the hell is this business about being banned from posting for a day?
You posted a shitton of comments yesterday, a bunch of which were down-modded (which, frankly, you might have expected), and as a result your good karma went away and it stopped letting you post for a while.
Users with lower karma levels aren’t allowed to post as much. Users with normal karma only get to make something like 10 comments per day, users with good or excellent karma get to post like 25 times (or maybe it
Re: (Score:1)
What's this "You must wait 6 hours to post a second comment" nonsense??? (shrug)
Try this:
- Firefox 4 beta
- SeaMonkey 2.1 beta
- Amiga iBrowse 4
- Opera 11
- Or Mozilla Netscape 10 - (just joking)
.
"The Firefox 4 beta seems to work fine." (Score:2)
Firefox 4b7 no workie.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Fedora 14 here with OSS ATI drivers
Chromium works fine; Firefox 4b7 works (slow~ish, after updating extensions), Firefox 4b8 (JS preview build) doesn't work
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Firefox 4b7 no workie.
It is also not working for me. I believe it is because our machines don't have opengl, which is required for things to work. Will have to check on this later on my non-work machine.
breasts and genitalia? (Score:5, Insightful)
quick question, does it show breasts and genitalia? The images on the "you need chrome"-page suggest otherwise. Which would be a great step backwards in terms of biology education, but completely intelligible from an america-centric self-censorship perspective.
Re:breasts and genitalia? (Score:5, Funny)
I had great success in finding her mammaries and vagina via the search box!
Re: (Score:1)
Re:breasts and genitalia? (Score:4, Funny)
Sigh....
And you needed the search box to find them?
I guess I should know better....this is slashdot after all....
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even the most advanced medical anatomy textbook doesn't put a penis on the front cover. That being said, it's based on zygote, and clicking around there reveals quite a bit. See, for example: http://www.3dscience.com/3D_Models/Human_Anatomy/Female_Systems/index.php [3dscience.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Breasts and external genitalia are documented extremely well on the internet, and if you don't have an internet you only need yourself and someone of the opposite sex and you can find out all you need to know, so I don't know that a body browser would add much value by including them in much detail.
Re: (Score:2)
if you don't have an internet you only need yourself and someone of the opposite sex and you can find out all you need to know
You mean like my mom? Hang on, I’ll ask her.
Requires a Chrome beta on Mac 10.6 (Score:2)
And it won't install because I don't have the requisite privileges. Most installers ask for my administrator's password.
Re: (Score:2)
Of course you need to have elevated privileges to write to /Applications, just throw it in ~/Applications.
Chrome on Ubuntu 10.10... (Score:2)
... doesn't work.
But then again, neither does submitting a /. comment.
FF4 vs Chrome 9 (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Weird, it's surprisingly fast on my work computer (terrible graphics card, I think a GeForce 7200) and almost instant to load.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm on 10.6.4 - perhaps that has something to do with it. Or perhaps it's because I've got a lot of RAM. I plan to try it later on a older 13" MacBook to see how it works there.
Re: (Score:2)
Great tool (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Trouble is, no two are alike. Some like gentle, some like not so gentle.
Re: (Score:3)
Actually, that organ (along with mammary glands and anything else that might let us peek beneath the clothing of the model) are absent from the search list entirely. Since the glands, for example, are visible by partially fading the top layer, I can only assume that some of the "naughty" bits were stripped from the list by Google. Forget biological fidelity, we might OFFEND somebody!
Re: (Score:2)
Women used to say that men need a map to find the clit. Now they have one.
Um, if I go to a strange city I need a map. Maybe if these women were with some slightly more experienced men they'd change their minds.
Generally awesome, transparency sucks though. (Score:4, Interesting)
While I think this is awesome, and biology teachers all over the world will love it, the transparency rendering is quite terrible.
The problem is that some surfaces are rendered, while others are not, which looks very wierd. You can reproduce the effect by only displaying the skeleton and setting transparency to 50% or so.
There are two generally accepted solutions:
1) To a topological sort and render all triangles back to front
2) Use a so called depth-peeling algorithm to render the scene in multiple passes
Unfortunately, they do neither right now, but there's always hope for the next version.
Personally, I favor 2) since you can offload all the work to the GPU. I had to implement this once for a CAD/CAM system for hearing aids (they are often custom-built, and you want to render the exterior semi-transparent so you can place the battery and electronics inside perfectly, before sending the thing to the manufacturing machine).
Neat and Buggy (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
You're not alone. Despite a radically different platform (Firefox 4beta7 on XP with Nvidia graphics,) I experienced hangs and full-screen artifacts several times.
I suspect "beta" extends beyond the site, to the browser engines...
had to downlaod crome beta to follow the link (Score:1)
from chrome
the button said chrome for windows xp 7 vista.
clicked it
got a list of linux packages
downloading 64bit.deb
now has google just got a default chrome for Windows graphic or something they use for the button? it ain't right.
We really are nerds... (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:1)
That's because most of the /. readers would have absolutely no idea whether it was an accurate representation of the female body.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, most of us have never cut open a female body before.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I like how the first dozen or so comments are just about the browser compatability, and not the biological fidelity.
Right, we need to get a little less nerdy and return to the main topic: skeletons. So who do you think would win, a Kirk skeleton or a Picard skeleton?
Ok, Google... (Score:1)
This is seriously cool.
when goddamit when????? (Score:1)
when is the firefox team going to release ff4.0?? i don't wanna use an unstable beta and i also don't wanna miss out on cool stuff like this. why is it taking so long anyway? chrome is releasing real fats updates. they're on 8 already and probably 10 by the end of january. and look at firefox. still struggling to get to 4. even ie is ahead!!!1
Re: (Score:1)
incompatible add-ons. that's what's wrong.
Re: (Score:1)
Opear is at 11, download that.
Everybody knows that a bigger number is always better.
Collaboration (Score:2)
Better labeling? (Score:1)
[I might get modded offtopic for not bitching that it doesn't work for me.]
I have a friend who's struggling through her anatomy and physiology course (becoming a physical therapist). Something like this would be a great study aid if the labels had more resolution. For example, the vertebrae are all labeled "{cervical,thoracic,lumbar} vertebra" when it would be more useful to label them individually, e.g., "5th thoracic vertebra".
May help at Doctors (Score:1)
Zygote: wicked expensive (Score:2)
Missing body parts? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Try searching for heart or brain Google, did you forget to include some terms in your search index?
Oops, punctuation.
Try searching for heart or brain. Google, did you forget to include some terms in your search index?
Missing: Lymphatics; names for certain vasculature (Score:2)
Missing and unidentified anatomy:
- I don't see any lymph nodes or ducts in this model, or the subclavian venous junctions.
- At least one important and complex configuration of vessels (the Circle of Willis) is visible, but not named or searchable.
But it's beta, and probably not meant for me...
Re:Yup, it's there. (Score:4)
Should I be relieved or worried that I'm not the only one who checked that out immediately?..
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I was kinda thinking it was an internal inverted penis...
Besides, I live in the territory between DFC and traps so 4Chan does not provide.
Current version has zoom, rotate, view... (Score:2)
Cut & paste to be added in a later release.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)