Adaptive rendering would seem to be the way forward. Ray tracing has the advantage that you can bail out when it gets complicated, or render areas to the desired resolution. This means a developer can prioritise certain regions of the scene and ignore others: useful during scenes of fast motion, or to bring detail to stillness. The result is similar to a decoded video stream, with detail in the areas that are usefully perceived as detailed. Combining this with eye position sensing (for a single user) would improve the experience.
Potentially interesting. Here are some possible problems: (1) How do you 'look away'? (2) Neural pathways will learn to ignore persistent images - try staring at the same point for a long time; everything turns grey! (3) Focus and resolution problems (4) Expense of replacement. (5) Social weirdness when people see something funny with your eye. (6) Safety as vision is compromised. (7) Lack of privacy as people can see your display.
To those people who think 'big science' is a waste of money: it is not. It is important for humanity as a whole to have cosmological and fundamental physical questions answered. We're thinking on the scale of species evolution, which should be beyond the interests of an individual wanting a 0.1% tax break.
If someone puts data in an area with a defined permission or privilege, then caution is always advised when the permissions are changed.
The Google policy should have been to introduce new levels of sharing, e.g. (a) private, (b) user-defined groups, (c) gmail networked, (d) gmail subscribers, (e) public. Looking at previous posts on this subject, it looks like Google's sharing feature was originally a (b) level, but has been elevated to (c). Google should have left everyone's data in (b), giving users the option to move shared items between new folders that may be assigned permission types (a) to (e).
Analogy: You've just created a blog entry that only you and your friend can read. Your friend makes an off-hand comment, then you make the entry public. Your friend will feel betrayed by the change in privacy.
We're not there yet with the technology. I do like the idea of a portable reader though. My ideal spec for a (written word) book replacement: 1440 x 1440 grey paper resolution squeezed into 4" x 6" (narrow pixels), 40 hour reading battery, optional dim backlight, open file formats (DRM optional), USB, PC content creation software, no exclusive purchasing of content, liquid formatting and user preferences (fonts, size, margins, spacing, etc) for presentation, max weight of a small paperback, 1/2" to 3/4" thick.
Implicit in purchase. Otherwise, you would not be afforded rights in a particular instance.
The argument behind that particular option is that it could be considered 'fair use' if your media broke, and you then obtained an mp3 copy from your friend.
Surely this case reduces to 'fair use', as should all interpretations of Copyright Law.
Fair use: copying to alternate media for backup or personal use, allowing content to be singly-used by those in the household, possessing technology that enables copyright violation (it might be used for 'fair use').
Unfair use: distributing your mp3s to those who do not have the same contract with the same authorized distributor, offering them online free, selling and passing off, use by non-family members outside property owned or rented by the household, public showings to strangers or broadcast, using enabling technologies to actively distribute materials protected by copyright.
I think the point of TinyURL-alikes is to shorten web addresses so they either look nice, or can be typed in without much fuss. When designing the ideal URL shortcut, you would end up in a circular argument that bounces between TinyURL and DNS, where a TinyURL design will end up as non-distributed URL resolving service. It bucks the authority of DNS distribution, is commercially controlled, had no ongoing commitment, and often has a single point of failure.
The answer simply reduces to this: websites should be designed to be humanly accessible via their URLs. TinyURL-alikes are really just a sticky-plaster on a common design flaw in websites.
I suggest an alternative that's more in-keeping with the web ethos: Websites should be written to publish their own small URLs in places that matter (like 'permalinks'). When used, these URLs are server-redirected to the appropriate content. If a popular server plug-in is widely adopted, then transparent TinyURL functionality (without the associated disadvantages) should soon become widespread... provided your website is not www.averylongexamplenamethatnobodywantstotype.org
Slashdot Mirror
Adaptive rendering would seem to be the way forward. Ray tracing has the advantage that you can bail out when it gets complicated, or render areas to the desired resolution. This means a developer can prioritise certain regions of the scene and ignore others: useful during scenes of fast motion, or to bring detail to stillness. The result is similar to a decoded video stream, with detail in the areas that are usefully perceived as detailed. Combining this with eye position sensing (for a single user) would improve the experience.
Potentially interesting. Here are some possible problems: (1) How do you 'look away'? (2) Neural pathways will learn to ignore persistent images - try staring at the same point for a long time; everything turns grey! (3) Focus and resolution problems (4) Expense of replacement. (5) Social weirdness when people see something funny with your eye. (6) Safety as vision is compromised. (7) Lack of privacy as people can see your display.
Are these materials carcinogenic in this form? If so, it could limit the potential applications, and make quality manufacture expensive.
You could argue that the other way around (blaming obesity for video games), but I wouldn't want to try...
To those people who think 'big science' is a waste of money: it is not. It is important for humanity as a whole to have cosmological and fundamental physical questions answered. We're thinking on the scale of species evolution, which should be beyond the interests of an individual wanting a 0.1% tax break.
Haha! - 18-stage pipeline and massive cache areas...
Could you trust M$ to write the boot manager? A way in, perhaps? Adverts, default choices?
If someone puts data in an area with a defined permission or privilege, then caution is always advised when the permissions are changed.
The Google policy should have been to introduce new levels of sharing, e.g. (a) private, (b) user-defined groups, (c) gmail networked, (d) gmail subscribers, (e) public. Looking at previous posts on this subject, it looks like Google's sharing feature was originally a (b) level, but has been elevated to (c). Google should have left everyone's data in (b), giving users the option to move shared items between new folders that may be assigned permission types (a) to (e).
Analogy: You've just created a blog entry that only you and your friend can read. Your friend makes an off-hand comment, then you make the entry public. Your friend will feel betrayed by the change in privacy.
We're not there yet with the technology. I do like the idea of a portable reader though. My ideal spec for a (written word) book replacement: 1440 x 1440 grey paper resolution squeezed into 4" x 6" (narrow pixels), 40 hour reading battery, optional dim backlight, open file formats (DRM optional), USB, PC content creation software, no exclusive purchasing of content, liquid formatting and user preferences (fonts, size, margins, spacing, etc) for presentation, max weight of a small paperback, 1/2" to 3/4" thick.
Implicit in purchase. Otherwise, you would not be afforded rights in a particular instance. The argument behind that particular option is that it could be considered 'fair use' if your media broke, and you then obtained an mp3 copy from your friend.
Surely this case reduces to 'fair use', as should all interpretations of Copyright Law.
Fair use: copying to alternate media for backup or personal use, allowing content to be singly-used by those in the household, possessing technology that enables copyright violation (it might be used for 'fair use').
Unfair use: distributing your mp3s to those who do not have the same contract with the same authorized distributor, offering them online free, selling and passing off, use by non-family members outside property owned or rented by the household, public showings to strangers or broadcast, using enabling technologies to actively distribute materials protected by copyright.
[This list non-exhaustive, and is opinion only]
I think the point of TinyURL-alikes is to shorten web addresses so they either look nice, or can be typed in without much fuss. When designing the ideal URL shortcut, you would end up in a circular argument that bounces between TinyURL and DNS, where a TinyURL design will end up as non-distributed URL resolving service. It bucks the authority of DNS distribution, is commercially controlled, had no ongoing commitment, and often has a single point of failure.
The answer simply reduces to this: websites should be designed to be humanly accessible via their URLs. TinyURL-alikes are really just a sticky-plaster on a common design flaw in websites.
I suggest an alternative that's more in-keeping with the web ethos: Websites should be written to publish their own small URLs in places that matter (like 'permalinks'). When used, these URLs are server-redirected to the appropriate content. If a popular server plug-in is widely adopted, then transparent TinyURL functionality (without the associated disadvantages) should soon become widespread... provided your website is not www.averylongexamplenamethatnobodywantstotype.org