×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

Browsing the Body

Soulskill posted about 4 years ago | from the not-porn dept.

Medicine 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."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

This is where I hate Apple (0)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#34587482)

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. I had to go do a search to find out how to do this, and I have no idea why the default is "off" and what impact it may make to my system if I turn it "on".

Re:This is where I hate Apple (1)

toQDuj (806112) | about 4 years ago | (#34587540)

Why, then, not enlighten us with this information?

Re:This is where I hate Apple (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | about 4 years ago | (#34587578)

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:This is where I hate Apple (1)

Kagura (843695) | about 4 years ago | (#34587900)

Note: This page requires Chrome to view. There are alternatives available, but nothing for pre 4.0 beta Firefox.

Re:This is where I hate Apple (4, Informative)

OzPeter (195038) | about 4 years ago | (#34587662)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34587564)

Awesome amount of detail to help other people in the same situation, ace...

Re:This is where I hate Apple (4, Insightful)

Goaway (82658) | about 4 years ago | (#34587884)

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:This is where I hate Apple (2)

Graff (532189) | about 4 years ago | (#34588780)

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:This is where I hate Apple (1)

mikestew (1483105) | about 4 years ago | (#34589492)

There isn't a single released browser (according to the page) that supports it. WebGL isn't baked yet.

Re:This is where I hate Apple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34590672)

chrome.exe --enable-webgl

Ubuntu Linux:

google-chrome --enable-webgl

"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1, Insightful)

chemicaldave (1776600) | about 4 years ago | (#34587500)

Which, ironically enough, cannot load the page at all for me.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

Conspiracy_Of_Doves (236787) | about 4 years ago | (#34587506)

You need the newest version. Even then, it takes a while.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | about 4 years ago | (#34587696)

I should have clarified this was after I download the latest version.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34587748)

Only the beta works, the latest stable still has no WebGL support.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588144)

iirc you could enable WebGL in 8x (and maybe earlier) with --enable-webgl or smth similar.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

mrjb (547783) | about 4 years ago | (#34589482)

start it from the commandline with --enable-webgl to see the pretty pictures.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 years ago | (#34587888)

Same, doesn't work in Chrome 8.0.552.215. How ironic Google would release tools that don't work on their own browser...

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:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (2)

strength_of_10_men (967050) | about 4 years ago | (#34588086)

Why the hate? Right on the front page of Body Browser it says:

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:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

chemicaldave (1776600) | about 4 years ago | (#34588330)

The hate is because the Chrome beta they link to doesn't work.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588532)

Worked fine for me.

Google chrome beta install workaround (1)

nanospook (521118) | about 4 years ago | (#34588964)

On Ubuntu 10.10 I had to uninstall Google-Chrome (not to be mixed up with Chrome) and THEN install the Google-Chrome Beta. Then it worked fine. If you want to check this, install the Chrome Beta, then go to Synaptic and look for google-chrome. You will see the standard version is still installed and the beta is not. At least this his my experience as of this morning..

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

iamhassi (659463) | about 4 years ago | (#34589214)

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.

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:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

Tarlus (1000874) | about 4 years ago | (#34589914)

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 technologies make for popular ./ headlines. When WebGL matures, gets standardized and becomes commonplace, we'll start to see web developers pushing out things like these for production.

Aside from Gmail I haven't seen any other webapps toting the "beta" buzzword for ridiculously long periods of time. But on the other hand, it's refreshing to finally see developers who take web application development seriously enough that they're not just kludging together some PHP, releasing it as v1 and then playing bugfixes by ear.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34590754)

It worked for me. I was hating because I tried it with the latest stable. But when I installed the linked beta it worked. Make sure you didn't accidentally run your stable install, even after installing the beta.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

dave420 (699308) | about 4 years ago | (#34591292)

It works fine for me - I installed it, and seconds later the page worked absolutely perfectly.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34587922)

1. It doesn't work in Opera either.

2. Which doesn't surprise me, since nothing works correctly in Opera.

3. Which doesn't really bother me, since this is 50% of the reason I use Opera.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (2)

nanospook (521118) | about 4 years ago | (#34589066)

These statements are misleading..

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 of mis-truths..

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34594718)

Actually:

1. It doesn't work in Opera.

2. Many, many of the websites I use daily don't work correctly in Opera, including my email, news, brokerage account, my other email account, slashdot, some mapping sites I frequent, etc. To be fair, craigslist appears to be fully functional in Opera.

3. It doesn't really bother me that much. I just limp along in Opera for 95% of my online experience, knowing that if you drive a P.O.S. car, you never have to worry about door dings.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588030)

Get the Canary build. It has built in support for WebGL

http://tools.google.com/dlpage/chromesxs

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588246)

In chome, you have to go to the "about:flags" page and enable WebGL. Works like a charm.

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (0)

commodore64_love (1445365) | about 4 years ago | (#34590970)

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)
.

-C64_love (banned from posting for one day)

Re:"Google, of course, recommends Chrome." (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34591534)

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 was 50).

Work within the system or get out of it. Quit whining.

"The Firefox 4 beta seems to work fine." (1)

old_skul (566766) | about 4 years ago | (#34587530)

Firefox 4b7 no workie.

Re:"The Firefox 4 beta seems to work fine." (2)

bjoast (1310293) | about 4 years ago | (#34587648)

To make it work in the Firefox 4 beta, you have to go to about:config and set webgl.enabled_for_all_sites to true.

Re:"The Firefox 4 beta seems to work fine." (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 4 years ago | (#34587810)

Works fine for me here, but I never had to reset that switch, since it's "true" by default.

Re:"The Firefox 4 beta seems to work fine." (1)

Fry-kun (619632) | about 4 years ago | (#34590118)

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:"The Firefox 4 beta seems to work fine." (1)

slyrat (1143997) | about 4 years ago | (#34587972)

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.

Yup, it's there. (-1)

Jugalator (259273) | about 4 years ago | (#34587566)

Her vagina is there - check!

Re:Yup, it's there. (3)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | about 4 years ago | (#34587788)

Should I be relieved or worried that I'm not the only one who checked that out immediately?..

Re:Yup, it's there. (1)

Eevee (535658) | about 4 years ago | (#34587990)

Well, since you didn't go "Rats, she doesn't have a penis," then we know you don't spend all your time on 4 Chan.

Re:Yup, it's there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588390)

At first I was like "So 4channers are ghey?" and then I slowly recalled repressed memories of dickgirls. GODDAMNIT.

Re:Yup, it's there. (1)

Rakshasa Taisab (244699) | about 4 years ago | (#34588460)

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... (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | about 4 years ago | (#34588500)

Cut & paste to be added in a later release.

Re:Yup, it's there. (2)

nanospook (521118) | about 4 years ago | (#34589108)

Does anyone else wonder why they put clothes on her? Is clothes part of her anatomy? Noooooo.. So you have to look at clothes instead of the human body. Typical sex hangups..

Re:Yup, it's there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34594884)

I think it's just a part of the game. First, you take her clothes off, then flay her, tear of in sequence her muscles, bones, intestines, blood and lymph vessels, and ... finally... nerves. It's an exercise for maniacs!

Re:Yup, it's there. (1)

j-stroy (640921) | about 4 years ago | (#34590444)

I can only see the model with lycra shorts on; however, on firefox at least, however at a distance, the clothes partially disappear due to Z granularity.

Re:Yup, it's there. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34591044)

Yup, you can view the whole body and zoom, have different parts of it at various transparency values. You can see the nerves and everything... except for some reasons you can't make the clothes transparent...

breasts and genitalia? (4, Insightful)

toQDuj (806112) | about 4 years ago | (#34587570)

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? (4, Funny)

Jugalator (259273) | about 4 years ago | (#34587606)

I had great success in finding her mammaries and vagina via the search box!

Re:breasts and genitalia? (1)

BrokenHalo (565198) | about 4 years ago | (#34587890)

Everything's there, but, if you want to see more "interesting" illustrations, one might suggest you use that well-known search utility to look elsewhere.

Re:breasts and genitalia? (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588408)

Sigh....

And you needed the search box to find them?

I guess I should know better....this is slashdot after all....

Re:breasts and genitalia? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34589206)

Really? I figured you'd have to turn off SafeSearch first.

Re:breasts and genitalia? (1)

lebjoot (560242) | about 4 years ago | (#34591758)

Did you found G spot? Im searching it for years.

Re:breasts and genitalia? (1)

nonewmsgs (1249950) | about 4 years ago | (#34598802)

heh that's right i know what a woman looks like now!

Re:breasts and genitalia? (2)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | about 4 years ago | (#34587630)

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:breasts and genitalia? (1)

jamesh (87723) | about 4 years ago | (#34593242)

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:breasts and genitalia? (1)

clone52431 (1805862) | about 4 years ago | (#34593312)

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.

Old Technology (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34587698)

I believe goatse displayed an "inside view" of certain organs.

Nothing new here.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34587728)

juveniles

Requires a Chrome beta on Mac 10.6 (1)

RNLockwood (224353) | about 4 years ago | (#34587760)

And it won't install because I don't have the requisite privileges. Most installers ask for my administrator's password.

Re:Requires a Chrome beta on Mac 10.6 (1)

sockonafish (228678) | about 4 years ago | (#34588306)

Of course you need to have elevated privileges to write to /Applications, just throw it in ~/Applications.

Re:Requires a Chrome beta on Mac 10.6 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34592598)

It's supposed to be replacing the version that's there now. Oh, well, I'll try when I get home.

Chrome on Ubuntu 10.10... (1)

youngerpants (255314) | about 4 years ago | (#34587780)

... doesn't work.

But then again, neither does submitting a /. comment.

FF4 vs Chrome 9 (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | about 4 years ago | (#34587808)

Firefox 4.0b7 works, yes, but it's slow as hell. The Chrome 9 beta is about 10 times faster. At least on OSX.

Re:FF4 vs Chrome 9 (1)

19thNervousBreakdown (768619) | about 4 years ago | (#34588262)

Weird, it's surprisingly fast on my work computer (terrible graphics card, I think a GeForce 7200) and almost instant to load.

Re:FF4 vs Chrome 9 (1)

ColdWetDog (752185) | about 4 years ago | (#34588692)

It's actually quite snappy on my MacBook Pro with 4.0b7. I was really surprised and impressed with the speed and lack of CPU thrash. It stutters occasionally but is in general a pleasure to use.

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:FF4 vs Chrome 9 (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | about 4 years ago | (#34588924)

I used a Macbook Pro from 2006 running Leopard (10.5), maybe that has to do something with it. I'm not sure what graphics card it has.

Great tool (3, Funny)

gmuslera (3436) | about 4 years ago | (#34587862)

Women used to say that men need a map to find the clit. Now they have one.

Re:Great tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588560)

Knowing where it is is only part of the equation. Knowing how to work it is more important. Most men have no clue.

Re:Great tool (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#34591200)

Trouble is, no two are alike. Some like gentle, some like not so gentle.

Re:Great tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588996)

Great. Another reason to bring a laptop or smartphone into the bedroom when there are more important things needing attention.

Re:Great tool (2)

Verteiron (224042) | about 4 years ago | (#34589232)

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:Great tool (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34594706)

It's the United Taliban States of America indeed...

Re:Great tool (1)

mcgrew (92797) | about 4 years ago | (#34591034)

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. (3, Interesting)

andi75 (84413) | about 4 years ago | (#34588088)

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).

Re:Generally awesome, transparency sucks though. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34591716)

I'm sure it'll be fixed up, transparency sorting is always hard.

Neat and Buggy (1)

methano (519830) | about 4 years ago | (#34588108)

I got it to work and it's pretty cool and reasonably fast and I looked at all the forbidden things but it also locked up my machine at the "pull the plug from the wall level" twice. I used Chrome beta on a 2007 Aluminum iMac running the latest Snow Leopard.

had to downlaod crome beta to follow the link (1)

oliverthered (187439) | about 4 years ago | (#34588184)

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... (5, Interesting)

Beroya (1916732) | about 4 years ago | (#34588354)

I like how the first dozen or so comments are just about the browser compatability, and not the biological fidelity.

Re:We really are nerds... (0)

SirWhoopass (108232) | about 4 years ago | (#34588894)

I like how the first dozen or so comments are just about the browser compatability, and not the biological fidelity.

That's because most of the /. readers would have absolutely no idea whether it was an accurate representation of the female body.

Re:We really are nerds... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34589128)

Yes, most of us have never cut open a female body before.

Re:We really are nerds... (1)

deniable (76198) | about 4 years ago | (#34598184)

I like my women like I like my coffee: ground up in an air-tight container.

Re:We really are nerds... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34589018)

Well, you can't comment on the actual thing when it doesn't work in neither of the browser you have installed, so you comment on what you can. A non-nerd forums would be simply filled with "it doesn't work" comments.

For me it doesn't work with Firefox 3.6, Chromium (complains about glXChooseFBConfig not working) and Rekonq. I could try Firefox 4 betas, but then, I'd have spend more time in upgrading my browser than I did in the human body, and I'd still comment on that, and not on the biological fidelity.

Re:We really are nerds... (1)

Random BedHead Ed (602081) | about 4 years ago | (#34596134)

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... (1)

chrisl456 (699707) | about 4 years ago | (#34588360)

... now you're just showing off.

This is seriously cool.

What, no Tilt? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588704)

How else am I going to get her on her back?

Browse that Bootie (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34588724)

Browse that Bootie

when goddamit when????? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 4 years ago | (#34589364)

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:when goddamit when????? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34589568)

so use a perfectly stable beta then...

what precisely is wrong with beta7?

Re:when goddamit when????? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | about 4 years ago | (#34591208)

incompatible add-ons. that's what's wrong.

Re:when goddamit when????? (1)

CyberDragon777 (1573387) | about 4 years ago | (#34591164)

Opear is at 11, download that.

Everybody knows that a bigger number is always better.

Collaboration (1)

enrevanche (953125) | about 4 years ago | (#34589554)

Maybe they can work out a deal with the TSA.

Anatom-e (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34589926)

This can never compete with the people over at www.anatom-e.com

Better labeling? (1)

ebh (116526) | about 4 years ago | (#34590382)

[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 (1)

sumitbhargava (786814) | about 4 years ago | (#34591348)

Now I can exactly tell my tibial ligament is paining...

Zygote: wicked expensive (1)

SheeEttin (899897) | about 4 years ago | (#34591772)

I just took a look at the Zygote site linked to in a comment above, it it is wicked expensive. $500-$1000 for a model with textures (slight discount for without). If you're just fine with the exterior of the body, Makehuman [makehuman.org] , despite having a horrible interface and dog-slow rendering, is free and has a damn fine body generator. (I once heard that it also generates a skeleton and musculature, but I didn't see it when I played around.)

Missing body parts? (1)

blibbo (928752) | about 4 years ago | (#34592034)

Try searching for heart or brain Google, did you forget to include some terms in your search index?

Re:Missing body parts? (1)

blibbo (928752) | about 4 years ago | (#34592114)

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?

Usability? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 years ago | (#34593390)

After watching this video on YouTube it looks like it requires a lot of clicks to drill in.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9o-AMwU9Fgw

Hopefully they fix this usability problem.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?