555 karma · joined June 25, 2011
By that measure, a two-hour movie can be compressed down to 22.5 kilobytes... :-)
Might be something to build into the next algorithm.
As a thought experiment, think what would happen if Mexico made drugs legal. Their government would had to fight against the cartels, and might at some point win.
What you have then is a system where Mexico has much less criminality. They can't export to the US directly of course, but people will just buy drugs legally in the Mexican north and try to smuggle it the the US. The US can decide for themselves if they want to legalize it or not, and if they don't the US criminality is still there, but the Mexican criminality is gone.
Well what would likely happen then is another 1989 Panama. One of the main reasons why the US invaded Panama was its involvement in drug trade. So the US would criticize Mexico publicly, and at some point probably invade it.
It looks to me like current time Mexico is stuck between a rock and a hard place. They must be opposed to drugs because their powerful northern neighbor wants them to, but outside market pressure, from the very same neighbor at the same time destabilizes it.
So it's an issue that should be solved by an outside party - the US. But that party won't tackle the issue because Mexican people can't vote in the US.
Sounds like bad US colonialism to me :-(
Privacy would have to built into the project on many layers. Without a push to do so from above, they won't.
Sign me up! :-)
Traditional film production uses 24fps with a 180° shutter: a film frame gets exposed for half of 1/24th of a second, and then during the other half of that 1/24th of a second, nothing is exposed. We learned to associate the motion artifacts produced that way as looking "film-like".
With digital camera, you can easily crank that up to a 360° shutter: each frame gets exposed for a full 1/24th of a second. Some films used 24fps 360° for selected scenes, and people immediately said that it looked "like TV". A fair response, since TV always had similar motion artifacts.
Now when PJ moved to a higher frame rate, he could have said "let's make sure we get a 180° degree shutter look for both 24fps and 48fps by filming at 96fps, then for every 4 frames, combining frames 1+2 to get traditional 24fps 180° footage, and using frames 1+3 to get a comfortable 24fps 180° (frame 4 would get thrown away in the process). PJ mainly uses Red Epic cameras that go up to 120fps, so this would have been no problem.
Instead, PJ went with filming at 48fps and a 360° shutter. This resulted in normal looking 24fps 180° footage, and very TV-like looking 48fps 360° footage for those cinemas that support 48fps. For me, this whole mess is just an unfortunate lack of good testing in pre-production.
Let's hope that James Cameron recognizes these issues and shows everybody how it's done properly by using the 96fps solution while filming Avatar 2.
How is the CPSC planning to implement this ban? Prohibit this exact combination? Or ban everybody that sells them in a package that looks vaguely toy-like? Are they ok if the packaging looks boring and industrial? Where do they draw the line? The CPSC is going to have a lot of explaining to do.
Well, I just did the test. Google voice search on a 40 month old iPhone 3GS is more responsive and much more precise than Siri on the latest and best 1 month old iPhone 5.
Apple has so much egg on their face.
And in the long term, why is Europe not building more Pumped-storage hydroelectric power plants, which would solve the issue? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pumped-storage_hydroelectricit...)
http://www.kicktraq.com/projects/adapteva/parallella-a-super...
But eyes that are randomly wandering around are actually kinda creepy, too... :-)
Interestingly enough, it's better on the iPad, where the top scrolls normally with the rest of the page.
This idea of having stuff fixed on the page goes back to the late 1990s, when frames were popular and tasteless big corp CEOs went "oh hey great, with frames we can ensure that certain parts of our branding are always in the face of the customer. Bring it on!".
A few years down the line, we grew up, refined our taste and trusted that if a visitor sees the logo in the top left and then scrolls down, he still remembers the branding. It's sad, really, that this lesson was lost again in the past year.
Prescient timing in the article: "If it's not Google that finally subverts the power structure of the industry, then it'll be someone else...eventually."
Just at that time of publication (Nov 2005), Apple worked intensively on the first iOS device (iPhone, first shown 14 months later).
John was right - but even he didn't dare to dream that his favorite company (Apple) is the one that eventually subverted the power structure.