Rethinking this since I first posted, I realize that although about a 30th of a second may be the best reset time for our rods and cones, but the Nyquist principle suggests that things would have to be shown at 60 fps or better to be genuinely indistinguishable from continuous motion. So my original assessment was wrong. It is not more than 30fps that could be a waste, rather, I should have said that anything more than 60fps might be.
Nonetheless, existing motion blur techniques do not perform the same function as what the eye does when it blurs fast moving things on our retina, so of course it is going to look different. There is no principle reason why such blending could not be done on a computer to present individual frames to us, however, other than one of possible computational intensiveness (in practice, right now I believe this may only be practical for very simple objects that are following continuous paths that can be described by relatively elementary functions or polynomials).
Nonetheless, the problem still theoretically maxes out at a complexity of O(n*m), where n is the number of pixels on screen, and m is the number of objects being simulated. The practicality of such complexity may have limited applications right now. Nonetheless, even that may be overcome either by throwing more processing power at the problem, or else finding a new way to model it that can be solved more efficiently on existing hardware, effectively lowering the implied 'k' in the notation to something more manageable.
So, if the motion that is on screen can be conveyed by a continuous function, one could use a bell-curve like blending of data across a time interval of approximately a 30th of a second or so, and show the results every 60th of a second. The brain should not be able to discern any difference between that and a framerate of 90, or 120 or even higher.
I'm pretty sure that every square inch of land in this planet is accounted for in some way or another... even if not privately owned, it belongs to some nation, and some tribute is going to be owed for staying there.
I might suggest that's only because software isn't currently fast enough to accomplish the same sort of blending your eyes do in the same time interval. This is a technological limitation that may be entirely overcomable by the addition of either (much) more processing power or else the discovery of entirely new approaches to facilitate such blending. I expect that somewhere along the line, there'd probably have to be some dedicated hardware for the function as well.
I can easily see a difference at higher framerates too. But the only reason you notice a difference at even faster framerates is because there's more visual data coming at you every second to contribute to the image on your retina. Persistence of vision is still going to cause that image to remain there for between 1/20th and 1/30th of a second or so after it was shown, and everything that occurs inside of a time interval that short will still be blended together on your retina. Our brains are basically wired to automatically interpret this as continuous motion. If you could produce such blended images at a framerate at least as fast as the time it takes for your rods and cones to react (about 1/30th of a second should suffice), then you wouldn't be able to perceive any difference at all between it and theoretically far faster framerates.
I don't suggest that producing such blended images is necessarily easy or for that matter even computationally feasible in real time right now... but it might be, someday.
I might suggest that the technology to implement "realistic" blurring, that is the same sort of blending that the rods and cones in the eyes would do when presented with multiple images in succession before they have even had a chance to fade from the retina (and thus effectively blended together) is either not technically feasible right now, or else simply too computationally intensive to be practical.
The rods and cones in human eyes cause absolutely *everything* you see to persist on your retina for between 1/20th and 1/30th of a second after you see it, and so anything you see within that time interval is going to be inherently blended together, In theory, replicating that precise blending of frames showing at only 1/30th of a second could be made completely indistinguishable from a higher frame rate that does not.
Yes... the reason why you notice a difference is because those additional frames *DO* have additional information in them. Your eyes, however, don't react quickly enough to discern the difference, and will blur images that occur too close to each other together. A theoretically slower frame, containing a proper blending of faster frames, would be indistinguishable from the faster framerate, as long as it is simply faster the threshold of vision persistence (approximately 1/20 to 1/30 of a second).
Owing to persistence of vision, once you have faster frame rates than about 30fps or so, the eye is just going to blend them together, and you won't perceive all the individual pictures separately. The only reason you might perceive a difference between higher frame rates is because of the fact that there can be different information being presented to your eyes in individual frames which will still contribute to the overall image that you see, and more frames means more data being contributed to the image, but your eyes are still going to blur them all together.
So, theoretically, with all the suitable blurring applied to a single frame, the eyes would probably not be able to distinguish any difference between 30fps and a much higher rate.
Of course, implementing such blur which might effectively simulate a faster frame rate can often be just as, if not more computationally expensive than simply rendering all of frames at a higher speed anyways, except for very specific (and simple) cases... so I really don't know how practical said theory is.
... but they believe that because you provided them your billing info that they can take the funds whenever they please.
They are mistaken in that belief, and I am nothing less than incredulous that an organization that works with electronic payments would not realize this. My bank account is linked to my Paypal account as well, but I know that they cannot withdraw any funds that are not a attributable either to a purchase or else a service charge that is attached to a purchase. Even on the off chance that they were able to accomplish it, I might lose my Paypal account, but I know for certain (or rather, at least as certain as anyone can know that money in any bank is secure, which it generally is, barring a national economic catastrophe that might possibly affect such things) that I'd get all of my money back... probably within hours, if not minutes of my notifying the bank that money has disappeared from my account
How are they alleged to be able to "forcibly remove" funds from a person's bank account, exactly? I presume we're talking about taking funds that they had not received any authorization to take.
I'n pretty sure that if the issue at hand for a possible lawsuit is on account of a threat to public health or safety, then any anti class action lawsuits clauses are not applicable.
Possibly.... but depending on your jurisdiction, EULA's don't have any legally binding power anyways (in particular, an EULA cannot take away any of your rights because you have not signed it such that a copy of the contract and your signature could be reviewed by a third party in the event of a dispute).
Eating too much, especially too much fatty foods, makes you fat.
Instead of blaming arbitrary organizations for society's problem with obesity, how about putting the blame squarely on the people who are eating too much in the first place?
All electronic locks have a physical key system as well, which can open the lock regardless of the status of the electronic lock. It should be absolutely no different from any other keyless entry system in this regard. If something physically has gone wrong with the device, you can still use a real key to slide back the bolt and open the door so that you can effect repairs.
There are three factors here... and it is not any single one, but rather the combination of all three that makes this vulnerability serious enough that I would consider a lock with this vulnerability to not be "fit for purpose".
1. The lock's security can be compromised by anybody, using tools that anybody can very easily acquire, without requiring access to particular trade skills or resources;
2. Access to the vulnerable port can done entirely from outside of the unit (the plug adds a little bit of protection, but as removal of this plug can still be done outside of the unit by anybody with a torx screwdriver that you can buy in a hardware store, I'd suggest that this may arguably be even worse since it adds an illusion of security where there isn't any); and finally,
3. It is untraceable. Not in the sense that you cannot know who did it, but in the sense that the hack does not leave any evidence behind that it had occurred. If the lock had to be physically disassembled to a state that was impractical to quickly reassemble, and especially if said disassembly was visibly obvious from casual observance of the lock, then that, too, would probably be sufficient.
If any one of these three issues were not present, this would simply amount to a security problem that is no worse than any other you might find in any other highly secure physical lock that is vulnerable to being defeated by dishonest people.
One of the operative words here is "untraceable". The hack leaves absolutely zero evidence of having been tampered with by this hack, and all the hacker has to do is put the plug cover back on, removal of which is hardly tantamount to fully disassembling the lock. Besides which, disassembling a lock that can later be easily reassembled should be something that can only be done from *INSIDE* of a unit... not from outside, as the plug they are offering does. If this port that this plug covers were only accessible inside of the unit, it would not be anywhere nearly as big of a security issue.
A million dollars isn't enough to comfortably retire on particularly early, unless you are only expecting to only live another 15 to 20 years or so. You need at least five mill to be really certain of early retirement.
It's meaningful because it presents the impression that the company is not hiding something from the consumer simply so that the company can make more sales. If it is not labeled, then the consumer is unable to make an informed choice on the matter, and may feel that companies that do not label their products as such have something to hide.
Required labeling from the start will indeed probably harm initial sales of genetically modified plant products, but it also has the best chance of quickly educating the public that companies that use them aren't just trying to pass off their stuff on consumers as "genuine" just to make a buck, and will eventually instill a sense of trust that could not hope to be achieved any other way.
It'd be ideal if companies would freely choose to do this themselves, but unfortunately, there *ARE* a lot of them that are more concerned with making money than being honest with consumers (even though consumers may have nothing to worry about). Not requiring labeling of such products would therefore only confuse the consumer who may not have yet had the opportunity to become educated, and only gives further reason to not trust such companies or products.
If you want to see it as a "scare sticker", that's your own problem... I would see it as admitting that they don't have anything to hide, and while there will doubtless be no lack of people who will initially avoid such products, I believe that such openness will eventually encourage consumers to ultimately be willing to trust them *FAR* more quickly than would hiding such details from them simply so that they can get more sales, or so that they feel that they can "compete".
It's almost as bad as a certain software company that decided it would sue anybody who publishes unfavorable benchmarks on their product when they are compared to others.
And what they achieve by *NOT* labeling will simply fuel a perception that the organizations that create such products might have something to hide (even if they do not). So really, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. At least if they do, they're being open and honest about it... which will more quickly lend itself to people learning to trust them than it would if they didn't label it us such at all.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, most people don't vote anyways.
Even among eligible voters, the highest turnaround you see is maybe only a few percentage points past the halfway mark.
Rethinking this since I first posted, I realize that although about a 30th of a second may be the best reset time for our rods and cones, but the Nyquist principle suggests that things would have to be shown at 60 fps or better to be genuinely indistinguishable from continuous motion. So my original assessment was wrong. It is not more than 30fps that could be a waste, rather, I should have said that anything more than 60fps might be.
Nonetheless, existing motion blur techniques do not perform the same function as what the eye does when it blurs fast moving things on our retina, so of course it is going to look different. There is no principle reason why such blending could not be done on a computer to present individual frames to us, however, other than one of possible computational intensiveness (in practice, right now I believe this may only be practical for very simple objects that are following continuous paths that can be described by relatively elementary functions or polynomials).
Nonetheless, the problem still theoretically maxes out at a complexity of O(n*m), where n is the number of pixels on screen, and m is the number of objects being simulated. The practicality of such complexity may have limited applications right now. Nonetheless, even that may be overcome either by throwing more processing power at the problem, or else finding a new way to model it that can be solved more efficiently on existing hardware, effectively lowering the implied 'k' in the notation to something more manageable.
So, if the motion that is on screen can be conveyed by a continuous function, one could use a bell-curve like blending of data across a time interval of approximately a 30th of a second or so, and show the results every 60th of a second. The brain should not be able to discern any difference between that and a framerate of 90, or 120 or even higher.
I'm pretty sure that every square inch of land in this planet is accounted for in some way or another... even if not privately owned, it belongs to some nation, and some tribute is going to be owed for staying there.
I might suggest that's only because software isn't currently fast enough to accomplish the same sort of blending your eyes do in the same time interval. This is a technological limitation that may be entirely overcomable by the addition of either (much) more processing power or else the discovery of entirely new approaches to facilitate such blending. I expect that somewhere along the line, there'd probably have to be some dedicated hardware for the function as well.
I can easily see a difference at higher framerates too. But the only reason you notice a difference at even faster framerates is because there's more visual data coming at you every second to contribute to the image on your retina. Persistence of vision is still going to cause that image to remain there for between 1/20th and 1/30th of a second or so after it was shown, and everything that occurs inside of a time interval that short will still be blended together on your retina. Our brains are basically wired to automatically interpret this as continuous motion. If you could produce such blended images at a framerate at least as fast as the time it takes for your rods and cones to react (about 1/30th of a second should suffice), then you wouldn't be able to perceive any difference at all between it and theoretically far faster framerates.
I don't suggest that producing such blended images is necessarily easy or for that matter even computationally feasible in real time right now... but it might be, someday.
And run an 8-bit computer emulator on it.
I might suggest that the technology to implement "realistic" blurring, that is the same sort of blending that the rods and cones in the eyes would do when presented with multiple images in succession before they have even had a chance to fade from the retina (and thus effectively blended together) is either not technically feasible right now, or else simply too computationally intensive to be practical.
Nonetheless, it is still theoretically possible.
The rods and cones in human eyes cause absolutely *everything* you see to persist on your retina for between 1/20th and 1/30th of a second after you see it, and so anything you see within that time interval is going to be inherently blended together, In theory, replicating that precise blending of frames showing at only 1/30th of a second could be made completely indistinguishable from a higher frame rate that does not.
Yes... the reason why you notice a difference is because those additional frames *DO* have additional information in them. Your eyes, however, don't react quickly enough to discern the difference, and will blur images that occur too close to each other together. A theoretically slower frame, containing a proper blending of faster frames, would be indistinguishable from the faster framerate, as long as it is simply faster the threshold of vision persistence (approximately 1/20 to 1/30 of a second).
Owing to persistence of vision, once you have faster frame rates than about 30fps or so, the eye is just going to blend them together, and you won't perceive all the individual pictures separately. The only reason you might perceive a difference between higher frame rates is because of the fact that there can be different information being presented to your eyes in individual frames which will still contribute to the overall image that you see, and more frames means more data being contributed to the image, but your eyes are still going to blur them all together.
So, theoretically, with all the suitable blurring applied to a single frame, the eyes would probably not be able to distinguish any difference between 30fps and a much higher rate.
Of course, implementing such blur which might effectively simulate a faster frame rate can often be just as, if not more computationally expensive than simply rendering all of frames at a higher speed anyways, except for very specific (and simple) cases... so I really don't know how practical said theory is.
They are mistaken in that belief, and I am nothing less than incredulous that an organization that works with electronic payments would not realize this. My bank account is linked to my Paypal account as well, but I know that they cannot withdraw any funds that are not a attributable either to a purchase or else a service charge that is attached to a purchase. Even on the off chance that they were able to accomplish it, I might lose my Paypal account, but I know for certain (or rather, at least as certain as anyone can know that money in any bank is secure, which it generally is, barring a national economic catastrophe that might possibly affect such things) that I'd get all of my money back... probably within hours, if not minutes of my notifying the bank that money has disappeared from my account
How are they alleged to be able to "forcibly remove" funds from a person's bank account, exactly? I presume we're talking about taking funds that they had not received any authorization to take.
I'n pretty sure that if the issue at hand for a possible lawsuit is on account of a threat to public health or safety, then any anti class action lawsuits clauses are not applicable.
Possibly.... but depending on your jurisdiction, EULA's don't have any legally binding power anyways (in particular, an EULA cannot take away any of your rights because you have not signed it such that a copy of the contract and your signature could be reviewed by a third party in the event of a dispute).
Because last time I checked, SCOTUS doesn't have jurisdiction elsewhere.
... for when I'm wanting to use my computer while bathing. Accidentally dropping the keyboard won't cause catastrophe. But is it bluetooth?
I thought that Curiosity was nuclear. What's the point of having a plutonium battery if it's not gonna do a clean 88 miles per hour?
Eating too much, especially too much fatty foods, makes you fat.
Instead of blaming arbitrary organizations for society's problem with obesity, how about putting the blame squarely on the people who are eating too much in the first place?
All electronic locks have a physical key system as well, which can open the lock regardless of the status of the electronic lock. It should be absolutely no different from any other keyless entry system in this regard. If something physically has gone wrong with the device, you can still use a real key to slide back the bolt and open the door so that you can effect repairs.
There are three factors here... and it is not any single one, but rather the combination of all three that makes this vulnerability serious enough that I would consider a lock with this vulnerability to not be "fit for purpose".
If any one of these three issues were not present, this would simply amount to a security problem that is no worse than any other you might find in any other highly secure physical lock that is vulnerable to being defeated by dishonest people.
One of the operative words here is "untraceable". The hack leaves absolutely zero evidence of having been tampered with by this hack, and all the hacker has to do is put the plug cover back on, removal of which is hardly tantamount to fully disassembling the lock. Besides which, disassembling a lock that can later be easily reassembled should be something that can only be done from *INSIDE* of a unit... not from outside, as the plug they are offering does. If this port that this plug covers were only accessible inside of the unit, it would not be anywhere nearly as big of a security issue.
A million dollars isn't enough to comfortably retire on particularly early, unless you are only expecting to only live another 15 to 20 years or so. You need at least five mill to be really certain of early retirement.
It's meaningful because it presents the impression that the company is not hiding something from the consumer simply so that the company can make more sales. If it is not labeled, then the consumer is unable to make an informed choice on the matter, and may feel that companies that do not label their products as such have something to hide.
Required labeling from the start will indeed probably harm initial sales of genetically modified plant products, but it also has the best chance of quickly educating the public that companies that use them aren't just trying to pass off their stuff on consumers as "genuine" just to make a buck, and will eventually instill a sense of trust that could not hope to be achieved any other way.
It'd be ideal if companies would freely choose to do this themselves, but unfortunately, there *ARE* a lot of them that are more concerned with making money than being honest with consumers (even though consumers may have nothing to worry about). Not requiring labeling of such products would therefore only confuse the consumer who may not have yet had the opportunity to become educated, and only gives further reason to not trust such companies or products.
It's almost as bad as a certain software company that decided it would sue anybody who publishes unfavorable benchmarks on their product when they are compared to others.
And what they achieve by *NOT* labeling will simply fuel a perception that the organizations that create such products might have something to hide (even if they do not). So really, they are damned if they do, and damned if they don't. At least if they do, they're being open and honest about it... which will more quickly lend itself to people learning to trust them than it would if they didn't label it us such at all.