This alert is a general one to tech companies in the Boston area, and not to defense contractors.
It's a warning to everybody. The truck driver of the shipping company can know what vendor's parts go into the secret Foo Bar research. One of those vendors may have an overeager sales rep, who's all too happy to boast that their widgets are used on the Foo Bar project. Those widgets are designed by an engineer, who might be easily bribed into tweaking the design to have some subtle change. It's immaterial to the widgets themselves, but when embedded in the final system it might be enough to compromise the Foo Bars when they're used in the field.
A contrived and convoluted example, but not terribly far-fetched. The supply chain for new technology is often pretty big, and there are many places that are vital enough and vulnerable enough to be worth attacking.
TFA is just as bad. The short version is that the FBI releases a general warning about Russian espionage, and a bunch of Russian VC firms swear they're not spying and have never heard of anyone doing such things.
I've spent my share of time in counter-intelligence briefings. I was never warned about mass surveillance, firmware backdoors, or any other high-tech techniques. Instead, what seemed to be the biggest threat was the risk of foreigners listening in on casual conversations, or picking up organizational details to find good targets to bribe. They're probably not trying to corrupt company executives (further) or researchers directly, but it's amazing what poorly-paid janitors have access to.
It's not just "plausible", but in fact likely, that the FBI has a lead that there are Russians operating in Boston. It's a general warning, because it's a general threat. It's not some specific VC firm or some specific technology that's being targeted. Rather, there's probably just evidence of somebody in the area looking for any tech information they can get.
Not that I've actually done my own research, but what qualifications do these folks have to state the security of an encryption mechanism? Everybody who finds a new way to twist a message thinks it's secure.
Dismissing obvious bias is valid. PRMan's bias is obvious, shown by the use of absolutes.
As for 60 Minutes' dubbing being obvious, Google can show us just how many people noticed or cared. Looking at the first several results, the only "LOTS of people" were Tesla enthusiasts already.
The point I'm making is that the claim that inaccurate sound is widely noticed is primarily the result of heavy confirmation bias. Incidents where a rough cut or particularly awkward clip were used are remembered because they align with the observer's preconceived notion. Incidents where the sound was mixed well are not remembered, because the audio quality was not notable.
This post probably deserves an off-topic mod. I know. With that out of the way...
I'll admit, since my comment on the last video, I've been curious what the next would be like. Roblimo, I don't know if you saw or cared about my comment, but I notice that this story is far better. As of this writing, there is not a single comment complaining about advertising, even though there's still only a single company directly involved. The focus is more general, and that makes the whole thing much more appealing. Kudos to you. It makes me happy to think that I might be improving Slashdot in some small way.
Granted, the subject is a bit under the typical Slashdotter's level of expertise, but that's beside the point. This would have been really nice when I was explaining to a former boss how SSDs should properly be used. He thought I was crazy for suggesting that the documents he wanted to have instant access to should be on the slower drive.
If you didn't notice an edit that matched your inaccurate expectations, you wouldn't ever know it worked. All you know are the few times you caught the edit. Good job. You and everyone you know, including your children, are apparently pedants.
The other 99% of what you heard while you were entertained? It was all fake too, but your confirmation bias doesn't care about that.
In short, no. The predominant audience for mass media are the same masses that care about the Kardashians.
That said, there are aspects of sound design that are being noticed. I've often half-joked that if I do my job right, nobody knows I'm there (noting that I mostly do live sound reinforcement, where there are fewer expectations to meet). It's getting harder to pull off the perfect unnoticeable audio edit... but on the other hand, the trend is now to have nearly-constant background music, so many of my mistakes can be covered.
What people notice more today are the cuts. Most audience members still won't notice that a particular bird call won't be heard near a particular tree, but they will be more likely to notice if an actor's voice changes between scenes. The old practice of having a professional singer dubbed over an actor is more difficult to pull off now, mostly because the audience is aware that such things are done. They hear the opening notes of the song, and it's become a game to hear the voice change.
I think the Wilhelm scream is also a great example. I simply refuse to use it. Especially with the influence of the Internet, the common effects are becoming a sort of secret society. Learning the clips and catching them in media is a moment of exclusivity. For just a moment you, the astute viewer, are immune to the effects of manipulative editors like me. Good for you. You've proven to yourself that you can still override your suspension of disbelief. All of those other silly folks in the theater are engrossed in the latest multi-million-dollar effects orgy, but you are better than they are, because you can see that the movie is just smoke and mirrors.
Yes, the squealing on gravel is still present, but gravel in general has fallen out of use, apart from period pieces (which wouldn't usually have cars, anyway). Most of the shows I've noticed lately have urban settings, or at least try to stay out of the dirt. It's hell on equipment, and gravel roads are rare enough today that it no longer breaks suspension of disbelief to see a country town with pavement.
In not-so-short, audiences are becoming more knowledgeable about the tools editors use, but I don't see them getting "smarter" about being able to notice equalization, mic placement, or most other things besides the obvious overused clips.
As I view audio as an art form, I also disagree with the very use of the term "smart" as you've used it. Appreciation of an art form, imperfections and all, is just as intellectual a pursuit as identifying regional bird calls. Should we call Michelangelo a moron, because David's hands are too big?
My comments are also getting to be far too big today...
Firefly is sci-fi, and it has a different intended audience than 60 minutes. That means it will have a significantly different directing approach, and scientific accuracy will be preferred more than the usual mass-market demographics.
As I've heard, 2001: A Space Odyssey was made with silent ships specifically because it would be unexpected. The jarring silence helps to establish the feeling of helpless solitude.
We had a top boom, but there was a stairwell next to one actor with an exhaust fan upstairs. The plan was to keep the boom closer to center between the actors and change the angle, so the amount of noise from the mic's side would be somewhat constant. In sound checks it was better than having more movement of a vertical mic, but in editing the changes were pretty obvious.
One of the first shorts I did had a pair of talking heads, with the camera cutting between them. We recorded in the same room, with the same audio setup. We recorded one actor's lines first, then just panned and moved the mic to record the other actor. Even just changing the mic's angle changed the background noise level significantly.
Speaking as a security engineer (who used to be a dev, and still codes sometimes), software devs that don't encrypt (and authenticate) sensitive data *are* morons. I really don't care if it was the PHB's orders or not; I would be ashamed to be responsible for such schlock.
My day job a while ago was as a software developer working on sensitive medical data. It's actually really difficult to do productive work when all of your materials are encrypted. Apart from some very specific computations that can be run on encrypted data, everything has to be decrypted for processing. That means the system doing the processing is inside the security boundary for unencrypted medical data, requiring a HIPAA-compliant secure facility. Once you've established that level of security, it's a small expense to move storage inside the boundary as well, reducing the development and overhead cost to handle the encryption and decryption cycles.
You're not supposed to like it, and you're not supposed to dislike it. You're supposed to not even notice it at all, because the product should perfectly match your expectations. That your expectations are in the minority does not make such efforts "bullshit", and your easily-insulted intelligence does not have any bearing on my own.
Most folks watch a movie to see an entertaining movie, not to get the perfect auditory experience of a 1967 Chevy rolling over limestone gravel on a clear summer day in Illinois. If that perfect sound gets in the way of the movie, then it's wrong, regardless of your desire for accuracy.
Similarly, high frame rates are jarring to most audience members who have grown up watching 24FPS. It's not as jarring as unedited audio, but it's still not what people are expecting. On the other hand, more frames gives the visual guys more room to work, so directors may elect to sacrifice expectations for stunning visual effects. As that higher frame rate becomes more common, more people's expectations will match yours, and higher frame rates will be more common. Likewise, if there's an actual trend toward audio verisimilitude, rather than just a self-righteous commenter on the Internet who swears he hears every little mistake, directors will have a reason to include realistic audio. Until then, to be quite blunt, it's your problem.
Hi. I'm an audio engineer. I've done several short films, nominated for a few awards. You just called me a moron, because you don't understand what I do.
Frankly, my dear, nobody gives a damn about what a particular car sounds like in a particular situation except for us nerds. Unless the media piece is explicitly focused on how something sounds, having realistic audio is actually distracting to the audience. There are thousands of little noises that our brains filter out because we don't care about them. Someone walks down an alley in a city at night, and their ears will pick up rustling clothes, a jingling zipper pull, creaking pipes, whistling wind, noisy cars, buzzing fans, someone shouting a block away, et cetera. Of course they'll hear their own footsteps, but that's the only thing they'll notice. A good audio engineer will strip out the soundtrack completely, add a noise floor to match the rest of the production, and dub in footsteps. Leaving in the raw audio will also leave in those background noises, but because the audience hasn't been exposed to them, the background noises stand out more, distracting the viewer from the film's actual subject.
Having tires squeal on gravel is similar. Rather than background noise, the distracting element is that the sound just isn't what's expected. In an action shot, there usually isn't time to properly establish the scenery.
Consider a scene where the Dukes are waiting by the side of the road, and leave in a hurry. They hop in their car, step on the gas, and rush off from a standstill. Sure, visually you can see it's a soft shoulder, but audibly, your brain hasn't bothered to think about dirt or gravel noises. The first sound most audiences associate with a fast departure like that is a squealing tire. That's what they expect, so having the more realistic grinding noise will raise a different cue in the audience's mind. They'll wonder briefly why the engine is grinding, and worry whether something bad happened to the General Lee.
In another scene, the boys have pulled head-in to a parking space. After the iconic hood-slide, they have to back out on the gravel before they can take off. That's a chance for the audio engineer to put in a slow gravel noise, hinting to the audience that they should expect to hear gravel. By the time the car accelerates, the audio scene has been established in the listeners' minds. A fast gravel grind may be acceptable, but the squeal is still less likely to distract.
The professional audio technique, and similar techniques on the visual medium, are a major reason behind the perceived quality difference between professional films and home movies. Subtle echoes, timing, and the selection of noises all contribute to keeping the audience focused in the direction the director wants. Blame him if something bothers you.
"Huh, you can't hear the car in this car clip. That's going to be awkward... I'll just add some stock noises in so it sounds normal."
-Some lowly editor
It's easy enough to be an honest mistake by an uninformed individual. Most non-Slashdotters don't know or care about the idiosyncrasies of electric cars.
There's likely something unusual about those lights. They may be dependent on another abnormal signal, or may need to accommodate higher traffic that disperses before the next lights in the series. They could also be the nodes where several green-light waves intersect, so they have to be the irritating red for somebody.
That seems correct. As a Michigan native, I can tell you they're best described as "really not that bad".
As a pedestrian, there's no "left turn" phase at lights, so the pedestrian crossings are more frequent, but that's offset by the longer green lights. You end up waiting the same amount of time, but have a longer time with clear right-of-way (though it should be noted that many states' laws explicitly give right-of-way to pedestrians who started crossing legally).
As a driver, direct left turns are still more convenient for a very busy intersection, but for something like a boulevard with businesses on each side, occasional U-turn spaces are a nicer alternative to a center turn lane. There are no conflicts with oncoming traffic and no traffic backups in unplanned spaces. Since the "left turn" maneuver is split into three components, the maximum complexity of each maneuver is reduced - at no point do you have to be concerned with more than one direction of traffic flow.
Once I got used to those several maneuvers, I found navigating Michigan lefts to be easier than a direct left turn. Shifting to the left lane for the U-turn could be done at my leisure, and it didn't matter if I miss the first U-turn, as I could expect another soon.
Your sarcasm shows that you don't actually understand the point.
From a legal perspective, this story's headline doesn't even agree with its summary:
NSA Confirms It Has Been Searching US Citizens' Data Without a Warrant
There have been queries... of communications lawfully acquired...
Looking through information that's already been collected has never required a warrant, any more than I need a warrant to take a shower. Police detectives look through old evidence routinely looking for anything that might connect to another case, or that might have been missed the first time. This is not unusual in the least.
The whole point of requiring warrants is so officers can't use the government's power to harass people (or per recent SCOTUS rulings, invade privacy). Once information is gathered, there is no real further risk of invading harassment (or privacy invasion), so there is no need for a warrant. That's why the "lawfully acquired" qualifier is so important.
Unfortunately, that important detail is also the question that is so often ignored - whether the gathering itself actually requires a warrant. If no warrant is necessary, then the legal precedent is that the NSA is free to look at the data however it wants, including using individual-specific filters. On the other hand, legal precedent also holds that a warrant isn't necessary, because the NSA's collection isn't targeted in any way. The same precedent that allows DUI checkpoints would likely also apply here.
Of course, that just feels wrong, and that's why there's so much outrage at the NSA doing what they are legally allowed to do (as far as case law has determined). The easiest (and probably most just-feeling) approach is for Congress to clarify that bulk observation of private details is an invasion of privacy, regardless of whether it's targeted or not, and make exceptions for DUI checkpoints and other socially-accepted instances. The outrage at someone using the data they already have is, if you'll pardon the pun, unwarranted.
I brushed my teeth without a warrant, showered without a warrant, and got dressed without a warrant. I picked up my laptop bag without a warrant, having packed it last night without a warrant. Then I drove to work without a warrant. I proceeded to do my daily allotment of engineering, without a warrant for any of it. I read Slashdot without a warrant, and I'm posting this comment without a warrant, as well.
Of course, I don't need a warrant for any of this, and that's what the NSA thinks, too. In the opinion of the NSA, the information they gather isn't private, and they don't need a warrant to get it or use it.
Ever notice that you tend to see a lot of Apple products in TV shows and movies, and the the logos are visible?
Also because Macs have that shiny futuristic-metal look, and the producers know they won't likely get sued for leaving the logo intact in a positive light. Just in case, it's a common practice to have trademark use agreements, that often don't even include any money changing hands. Apple gets a bit of product placement, and the producers get a prop that's subtly realistic. There's no uncanny modifications that look just a wee bit off, distracting from the scene.
that isn't coincidence, nor is it because Hollywood likes Macs
No, that's actually exactly why. Similarly, note how many military fiction will use Dell or older Alienware models, because of the rugged look.
We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption was virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade.
That record stands even when people aren't asked at all about their alcohol use. Rather, cirrhosis rates can be measured, and show a similar trend.
It seems to be a common trait of video-related articles, likely due to the way the videos are produced. Rather than general discussion of a new technology's impact or contribution to the state of the art, the videos often focus on one brand's selling points. To those familiar with the brand, the article is just a review of what they already know. To those outside the brand's narrow field, the benefits of the industry are obscured by the focus on the single brand.
This inconvenient focus often transfers to the summary as well. In this example, the brand MarkiTx is mentioned six times. In comparison, James Schlesinger's obituary includes his name only three times. Many stories include the subject's name only once in the summary. This disparity becomes very obvious when the reader skims the summary, and their eyes are drawn to the capitalized names.
Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution to recommend. The typical news outlet avoids the issue by making their segments a compilation of several interviews and depictions, but that requires a rather large investment of labor and a specialized workflow, which I don't believe Slashdot's set up for. As for the writing, it is natural that the articles read more like a press release than an article. I assume that you've spent longer writing this piece than you would spend proofreading a user-submitted summary, so it's now a personal effort. The quality of the writing is higher than the usual submissions, and as you're more familiar with the subject, it's longer as well.
In short, the whole thing just seems different from Slashdot's usual fare. Given the somewhat-paranoid anti-corporate disposition of the userbase, the assumption is that it's a sponsored submission.
Only as a powder or thin shavings. As a solid block, it'd make an effective barrier.
In the event of a crash where there is grinding across the titanium shield, there would be a lot of sparks on the outside, but no damage to the batteries.
Let's imagine the Zimmerman trial in a different direction. In real life, the Zimmerman trial had several jurors who were mothers, who knew nothing about the case, and who carried firearms themselves. They had two opposing inherent biases: they had children of their own, and they felt that carrying a lethal weapon for protection was warranted in general.
Clearly, then, they know a thing or two about the firearm basics, disproving your basic assertion that in the existing court system, jurors with knowledge are dismissed. I get the distinct impression that you didn't actually read the site I linked to. The injustice in the Zimmerman trial was that there was a trial at all when the prosecution didn't have evidence for its case. Instead of letting the matter fade away because Zimmerman could not be proven guilty, it went to trial anyway, he couldn't be proven guilty, but now much of America simply assumes that he really murdered, anyway, because of the media coverage surrounding the case.
Yet you seem to want jurors who are familiar with "media coverage for similar cases".
Why would you put a round in the chamber?
Personally, I'd assume it's because if he's picking up a gun, it should be ready for use, on principle, but my opinion is irrelevant.
The prosecutor's job in the trial is to put forth a theory of the crime and evidence supporting the theory. Chambering a bullet shows that Zimmerman did indeed intend to have the option to shoot the gun, rather than just use it as an empty threat.
It's the defending attorney's job to show that the prosecutor's evidence is insufficient, and that includes explaining that it's not a simple matter to prepare the gun to fire, so it's reasonable to be ready if there's any chance the gun may be necessary as a functioning firearm. The explanation doesn't have to be long to be effective - you explained it yourself in three sentences.
Now, how does the Court of Public Opinion factor into basic knowledge of firearms safety and self-defense?
The public opinion, as decided by the media spin, creates a bias to what's considered important. If a popular crime drama focuses on how a killer prepared his gun before murdering someone, it's unfairly difficult for the defense to explain it away. On the other hand, scary news stories about armed paramilitary gangs roaming the streets would make the prosecutor's job unfairly difficult, because the public will be more inclined to consider it reasonable to walk outside with an intent to kill.
Again: we kick out anyone who is knowledgeable about the case in any way.
So you keep saying, but yet you show only evidence that we dismiss people with probably-unfair biases.
If Apple and Samsung are in court, and a Nokia engineer is on the jury, he's probably also a suitable fit for a job with the litigants, so he's easily corruptible with the promise of a new job. He very likely has already had professional encounters with either or both companies, so he may have a personal bias toward a particular outcome. A civil rights lawyer also has a professional interest in advancing one side over the other, regardless of the facts of the case, and a building inspector would almost certainly have a professional relationship with the contractors in the case, especially in a smaller jurisdiction.
Slashdot Mirror
This alert is a general one to tech companies in the Boston area, and not to defense contractors.
It's a warning to everybody. The truck driver of the shipping company can know what vendor's parts go into the secret Foo Bar research. One of those vendors may have an overeager sales rep, who's all too happy to boast that their widgets are used on the Foo Bar project. Those widgets are designed by an engineer, who might be easily bribed into tweaking the design to have some subtle change. It's immaterial to the widgets themselves, but when embedded in the final system it might be enough to compromise the Foo Bars when they're used in the field.
A contrived and convoluted example, but not terribly far-fetched. The supply chain for new technology is often pretty big, and there are many places that are vital enough and vulnerable enough to be worth attacking.
TFA is just as bad. The short version is that the FBI releases a general warning about Russian espionage, and a bunch of Russian VC firms swear they're not spying and have never heard of anyone doing such things.
I've spent my share of time in counter-intelligence briefings. I was never warned about mass surveillance, firmware backdoors, or any other high-tech techniques. Instead, what seemed to be the biggest threat was the risk of foreigners listening in on casual conversations, or picking up organizational details to find good targets to bribe. They're probably not trying to corrupt company executives (further) or researchers directly, but it's amazing what poorly-paid janitors have access to.
It's not just "plausible", but in fact likely, that the FBI has a lead that there are Russians operating in Boston. It's a general warning, because it's a general threat. It's not some specific VC firm or some specific technology that's being targeted. Rather, there's probably just evidence of somebody in the area looking for any tech information they can get.
Not that I've actually done my own research, but what qualifications do these folks have to state the security of an encryption mechanism? Everybody who finds a new way to twist a message thinks it's secure.
Dismissing obvious bias is valid. PRMan's bias is obvious, shown by the use of absolutes.
As for 60 Minutes' dubbing being obvious, Google can show us just how many people noticed or cared. Looking at the first several results, the only "LOTS of people" were Tesla enthusiasts already.
The point I'm making is that the claim that inaccurate sound is widely noticed is primarily the result of heavy confirmation bias. Incidents where a rough cut or particularly awkward clip were used are remembered because they align with the observer's preconceived notion. Incidents where the sound was mixed well are not remembered, because the audio quality was not notable.
This post probably deserves an off-topic mod. I know. With that out of the way...
I'll admit, since my comment on the last video, I've been curious what the next would be like. Roblimo, I don't know if you saw or cared about my comment, but I notice that this story is far better. As of this writing, there is not a single comment complaining about advertising, even though there's still only a single company directly involved. The focus is more general, and that makes the whole thing much more appealing. Kudos to you. It makes me happy to think that I might be improving Slashdot in some small way.
Granted, the subject is a bit under the typical Slashdotter's level of expertise, but that's beside the point. This would have been really nice when I was explaining to a former boss how SSDs should properly be used. He thought I was crazy for suggesting that the documents he wanted to have instant access to should be on the slower drive.
If you didn't notice an edit that matched your inaccurate expectations, you wouldn't ever know it worked. All you know are the few times you caught the edit. Good job. You and everyone you know, including your children, are apparently pedants.
The other 99% of what you heard while you were entertained? It was all fake too, but your confirmation bias doesn't care about that.
In short, no. The predominant audience for mass media are the same masses that care about the Kardashians.
That said, there are aspects of sound design that are being noticed. I've often half-joked that if I do my job right, nobody knows I'm there (noting that I mostly do live sound reinforcement, where there are fewer expectations to meet). It's getting harder to pull off the perfect unnoticeable audio edit... but on the other hand, the trend is now to have nearly-constant background music, so many of my mistakes can be covered.
What people notice more today are the cuts. Most audience members still won't notice that a particular bird call won't be heard near a particular tree, but they will be more likely to notice if an actor's voice changes between scenes. The old practice of having a professional singer dubbed over an actor is more difficult to pull off now, mostly because the audience is aware that such things are done. They hear the opening notes of the song, and it's become a game to hear the voice change.
I think the Wilhelm scream is also a great example. I simply refuse to use it. Especially with the influence of the Internet, the common effects are becoming a sort of secret society. Learning the clips and catching them in media is a moment of exclusivity. For just a moment you, the astute viewer, are immune to the effects of manipulative editors like me. Good for you. You've proven to yourself that you can still override your suspension of disbelief. All of those other silly folks in the theater are engrossed in the latest multi-million-dollar effects orgy, but you are better than they are, because you can see that the movie is just smoke and mirrors.
Yes, the squealing on gravel is still present, but gravel in general has fallen out of use, apart from period pieces (which wouldn't usually have cars, anyway). Most of the shows I've noticed lately have urban settings, or at least try to stay out of the dirt. It's hell on equipment, and gravel roads are rare enough today that it no longer breaks suspension of disbelief to see a country town with pavement.
In not-so-short, audiences are becoming more knowledgeable about the tools editors use, but I don't see them getting "smarter" about being able to notice equalization, mic placement, or most other things besides the obvious overused clips.
As I view audio as an art form, I also disagree with the very use of the term "smart" as you've used it. Appreciation of an art form, imperfections and all, is just as intellectual a pursuit as identifying regional bird calls. Should we call Michelangelo a moron, because David's hands are too big?
My comments are also getting to be far too big today...
Firefly is sci-fi, and it has a different intended audience than 60 minutes. That means it will have a significantly different directing approach, and scientific accuracy will be preferred more than the usual mass-market demographics.
As I've heard, 2001: A Space Odyssey was made with silent ships specifically because it would be unexpected. The jarring silence helps to establish the feeling of helpless solitude.
We had a top boom, but there was a stairwell next to one actor with an exhaust fan upstairs. The plan was to keep the boom closer to center between the actors and change the angle, so the amount of noise from the mic's side would be somewhat constant. In sound checks it was better than having more movement of a vertical mic, but in editing the changes were pretty obvious.
One of the first shorts I did had a pair of talking heads, with the camera cutting between them. We recorded in the same room, with the same audio setup. We recorded one actor's lines first, then just panned and moved the mic to record the other actor. Even just changing the mic's angle changed the background noise level significantly.
Speaking as a security engineer (who used to be a dev, and still codes sometimes), software devs that don't encrypt (and authenticate) sensitive data *are* morons. I really don't care if it was the PHB's orders or not; I would be ashamed to be responsible for such schlock.
My day job a while ago was as a software developer working on sensitive medical data. It's actually really difficult to do productive work when all of your materials are encrypted. Apart from some very specific computations that can be run on encrypted data, everything has to be decrypted for processing. That means the system doing the processing is inside the security boundary for unencrypted medical data, requiring a HIPAA-compliant secure facility. Once you've established that level of security, it's a small expense to move storage inside the boundary as well, reducing the development and overhead cost to handle the encryption and decryption cycles.
You're not supposed to like it, and you're not supposed to dislike it. You're supposed to not even notice it at all, because the product should perfectly match your expectations. That your expectations are in the minority does not make such efforts "bullshit", and your easily-insulted intelligence does not have any bearing on my own.
Most folks watch a movie to see an entertaining movie, not to get the perfect auditory experience of a 1967 Chevy rolling over limestone gravel on a clear summer day in Illinois. If that perfect sound gets in the way of the movie, then it's wrong, regardless of your desire for accuracy.
Similarly, high frame rates are jarring to most audience members who have grown up watching 24FPS. It's not as jarring as unedited audio, but it's still not what people are expecting. On the other hand, more frames gives the visual guys more room to work, so directors may elect to sacrifice expectations for stunning visual effects. As that higher frame rate becomes more common, more people's expectations will match yours, and higher frame rates will be more common. Likewise, if there's an actual trend toward audio verisimilitude, rather than just a self-righteous commenter on the Internet who swears he hears every little mistake, directors will have a reason to include realistic audio. Until then, to be quite blunt, it's your problem.
Hi. I'm an audio engineer. I've done several short films, nominated for a few awards. You just called me a moron, because you don't understand what I do.
Frankly, my dear, nobody gives a damn about what a particular car sounds like in a particular situation except for us nerds. Unless the media piece is explicitly focused on how something sounds, having realistic audio is actually distracting to the audience. There are thousands of little noises that our brains filter out because we don't care about them. Someone walks down an alley in a city at night, and their ears will pick up rustling clothes, a jingling zipper pull, creaking pipes, whistling wind, noisy cars, buzzing fans, someone shouting a block away, et cetera. Of course they'll hear their own footsteps, but that's the only thing they'll notice. A good audio engineer will strip out the soundtrack completely, add a noise floor to match the rest of the production, and dub in footsteps. Leaving in the raw audio will also leave in those background noises, but because the audience hasn't been exposed to them, the background noises stand out more, distracting the viewer from the film's actual subject.
Having tires squeal on gravel is similar. Rather than background noise, the distracting element is that the sound just isn't what's expected. In an action shot, there usually isn't time to properly establish the scenery.
Consider a scene where the Dukes are waiting by the side of the road, and leave in a hurry. They hop in their car, step on the gas, and rush off from a standstill. Sure, visually you can see it's a soft shoulder, but audibly, your brain hasn't bothered to think about dirt or gravel noises. The first sound most audiences associate with a fast departure like that is a squealing tire. That's what they expect, so having the more realistic grinding noise will raise a different cue in the audience's mind. They'll wonder briefly why the engine is grinding, and worry whether something bad happened to the General Lee.
In another scene, the boys have pulled head-in to a parking space. After the iconic hood-slide, they have to back out on the gravel before they can take off. That's a chance for the audio engineer to put in a slow gravel noise, hinting to the audience that they should expect to hear gravel. By the time the car accelerates, the audio scene has been established in the listeners' minds. A fast gravel grind may be acceptable, but the squeal is still less likely to distract.
The professional audio technique, and similar techniques on the visual medium, are a major reason behind the perceived quality difference between professional films and home movies. Subtle echoes, timing, and the selection of noises all contribute to keeping the audience focused in the direction the director wants. Blame him if something bothers you.
"Huh, you can't hear the car in this car clip. That's going to be awkward... I'll just add some stock noises in so it sounds normal."
-Some lowly editor
It's easy enough to be an honest mistake by an uninformed individual. Most non-Slashdotters don't know or care about the idiosyncrasies of electric cars.
Of course, there's a suitable xkcd for that.
There's likely something unusual about those lights. They may be dependent on another abnormal signal, or may need to accommodate higher traffic that disperses before the next lights in the series. They could also be the nodes where several green-light waves intersect, so they have to be the irritating red for somebody.
That seems correct. As a Michigan native, I can tell you they're best described as "really not that bad".
As a pedestrian, there's no "left turn" phase at lights, so the pedestrian crossings are more frequent, but that's offset by the longer green lights. You end up waiting the same amount of time, but have a longer time with clear right-of-way (though it should be noted that many states' laws explicitly give right-of-way to pedestrians who started crossing legally).
As a driver, direct left turns are still more convenient for a very busy intersection, but for something like a boulevard with businesses on each side, occasional U-turn spaces are a nicer alternative to a center turn lane. There are no conflicts with oncoming traffic and no traffic backups in unplanned spaces. Since the "left turn" maneuver is split into three components, the maximum complexity of each maneuver is reduced - at no point do you have to be concerned with more than one direction of traffic flow.
Once I got used to those several maneuvers, I found navigating Michigan lefts to be easier than a direct left turn. Shifting to the left lane for the U-turn could be done at my leisure, and it didn't matter if I miss the first U-turn, as I could expect another soon.
It's a pity, then, that we live in a society that values everyone's opinions.
Your sarcasm shows that you don't actually understand the point.
From a legal perspective, this story's headline doesn't even agree with its summary:
NSA Confirms It Has Been Searching US Citizens' Data Without a Warrant
There have been queries ... of communications lawfully acquired...
Looking through information that's already been collected has never required a warrant, any more than I need a warrant to take a shower. Police detectives look through old evidence routinely looking for anything that might connect to another case, or that might have been missed the first time. This is not unusual in the least.
The whole point of requiring warrants is so officers can't use the government's power to harass people (or per recent SCOTUS rulings, invade privacy). Once information is gathered, there is no real further risk of invading harassment (or privacy invasion), so there is no need for a warrant. That's why the "lawfully acquired" qualifier is so important.
Unfortunately, that important detail is also the question that is so often ignored - whether the gathering itself actually requires a warrant. If no warrant is necessary, then the legal precedent is that the NSA is free to look at the data however it wants, including using individual-specific filters. On the other hand, legal precedent also holds that a warrant isn't necessary, because the NSA's collection isn't targeted in any way. The same precedent that allows DUI checkpoints would likely also apply here.
Of course, that just feels wrong, and that's why there's so much outrage at the NSA doing what they are legally allowed to do (as far as case law has determined). The easiest (and probably most just-feeling) approach is for Congress to clarify that bulk observation of private details is an invasion of privacy, regardless of whether it's targeted or not, and make exceptions for DUI checkpoints and other socially-accepted instances. The outrage at someone using the data they already have is, if you'll pardon the pun, unwarranted.
Today, I got out of bed without a warrant.
I brushed my teeth without a warrant, showered without a warrant, and got dressed without a warrant. I picked up my laptop bag without a warrant, having packed it last night without a warrant. Then I drove to work without a warrant. I proceeded to do my daily allotment of engineering, without a warrant for any of it. I read Slashdot without a warrant, and I'm posting this comment without a warrant, as well.
Of course, I don't need a warrant for any of this, and that's what the NSA thinks, too. In the opinion of the NSA, the information they gather isn't private, and they don't need a warrant to get it or use it.
Ever notice that you tend to see a lot of Apple products in TV shows and movies, and the the logos are visible?
Also because Macs have that shiny futuristic-metal look, and the producers know they won't likely get sued for leaving the logo intact in a positive light. Just in case, it's a common practice to have trademark use agreements, that often don't even include any money changing hands. Apple gets a bit of product placement, and the producers get a prop that's subtly realistic. There's no uncanny modifications that look just a wee bit off, distracting from the scene.
that isn't coincidence, nor is it because Hollywood likes Macs
No, that's actually exactly why. Similarly, note how many military fiction will use Dell or older Alienware models, because of the rugged look.
comment.
Yes.
We find that alcohol consumption fell sharply at the beginning of Prohibition, to approximately 30 percent of its pre-Prohibition level. During the next several years, however, alcohol consumption increased sharply, to about 60-70 percent of its pre-prohibition level. The level of consumption was virtually the same immediately after Prohibition as during the latter part of Prohibition, although consumption increased to approximately its pre-Prohibition level during the subsequent decade.
That record stands even when people aren't asked at all about their alcohol use. Rather, cirrhosis rates can be measured, and show a similar trend.
The problem is that it looks like an ad.
It seems to be a common trait of video-related articles, likely due to the way the videos are produced. Rather than general discussion of a new technology's impact or contribution to the state of the art, the videos often focus on one brand's selling points. To those familiar with the brand, the article is just a review of what they already know. To those outside the brand's narrow field, the benefits of the industry are obscured by the focus on the single brand.
This inconvenient focus often transfers to the summary as well. In this example, the brand MarkiTx is mentioned six times. In comparison, James Schlesinger's obituary includes his name only three times. Many stories include the subject's name only once in the summary. This disparity becomes very obvious when the reader skims the summary, and their eyes are drawn to the capitalized names.
Unfortunately, I don't have a good solution to recommend. The typical news outlet avoids the issue by making their segments a compilation of several interviews and depictions, but that requires a rather large investment of labor and a specialized workflow, which I don't believe Slashdot's set up for. As for the writing, it is natural that the articles read more like a press release than an article. I assume that you've spent longer writing this piece than you would spend proofreading a user-submitted summary, so it's now a personal effort. The quality of the writing is higher than the usual submissions, and as you're more familiar with the subject, it's longer as well.
In short, the whole thing just seems different from Slashdot's usual fare. Given the somewhat-paranoid anti-corporate disposition of the userbase, the assumption is that it's a sponsored submission.
Only as a powder or thin shavings. As a solid block, it'd make an effective barrier.
In the event of a crash where there is grinding across the titanium shield, there would be a lot of sparks on the outside, but no damage to the batteries.
You're retarded.
A brilliant rebuttal.
Let's imagine the Zimmerman trial in a different direction. In real life, the Zimmerman trial had several jurors who were mothers, who knew nothing about the case, and who carried firearms themselves. They had two opposing inherent biases: they had children of their own, and they felt that carrying a lethal weapon for protection was warranted in general.
Clearly, then, they know a thing or two about the firearm basics, disproving your basic assertion that in the existing court system, jurors with knowledge are dismissed. I get the distinct impression that you didn't actually read the site I linked to. The injustice in the Zimmerman trial was that there was a trial at all when the prosecution didn't have evidence for its case. Instead of letting the matter fade away because Zimmerman could not be proven guilty, it went to trial anyway, he couldn't be proven guilty, but now much of America simply assumes that he really murdered, anyway, because of the media coverage surrounding the case.
Yet you seem to want jurors who are familiar with "media coverage for similar cases".
Why would you put a round in the chamber?
Personally, I'd assume it's because if he's picking up a gun, it should be ready for use, on principle, but my opinion is irrelevant.
The prosecutor's job in the trial is to put forth a theory of the crime and evidence supporting the theory. Chambering a bullet shows that Zimmerman did indeed intend to have the option to shoot the gun, rather than just use it as an empty threat.
It's the defending attorney's job to show that the prosecutor's evidence is insufficient, and that includes explaining that it's not a simple matter to prepare the gun to fire, so it's reasonable to be ready if there's any chance the gun may be necessary as a functioning firearm. The explanation doesn't have to be long to be effective - you explained it yourself in three sentences.
Now, how does the Court of Public Opinion factor into basic knowledge of firearms safety and self-defense?
The public opinion, as decided by the media spin, creates a bias to what's considered important. If a popular crime drama focuses on how a killer prepared his gun before murdering someone, it's unfairly difficult for the defense to explain it away. On the other hand, scary news stories about armed paramilitary gangs roaming the streets would make the prosecutor's job unfairly difficult, because the public will be more inclined to consider it reasonable to walk outside with an intent to kill.
Again: we kick out anyone who is knowledgeable about the case in any way.
So you keep saying, but yet you show only evidence that we dismiss people with probably-unfair biases.
If Apple and Samsung are in court, and a Nokia engineer is on the jury, he's probably also a suitable fit for a job with the litigants, so he's easily corruptible with the promise of a new job. He very likely has already had professional encounters with either or both companies, so he may have a personal bias toward a particular outcome. A civil rights lawyer also has a professional interest in advancing one side over the other, regardless of the facts of the case, and a building inspector would almost certainly have a professional relationship with the contractors in the case, especially in a smaller jurisdiction.