Either do something that actually takes advantage of the capabilities of the format or just produce it in 480p or 720p and spend that money on better storylines, writing and acting.
but interpolation is not a higher framerate, any more than zooming in on a jpg gives it a higher resolution.
That's not exactly true. It depends on the content of the scene. If we are talking about something simple like pan/tilt of the camera across a static background, then interpolation can recreate the missing frames just as if it was filmed at a higher frame rate. The opposite end of the spectrum is when the frame is full of objects that are moving dynamically in relationship to each other in addition to camera motion. In that case, the interpolated frames will distort the shapes and/or trajectories of the objects, which makes the movement look unnatural.
Most video content has varying degrees of this, so some scenes will look great with motion interpolation and others will look over-smoothed. Still, for the content I watch, I think the benefits tend to outweigh the drawbacks.
The obvious gap here is how the "dark fluid" is continuously created. Even if the theory fits all cosmological observations, that would still need to be explained.
The only thing I can think of is that it would accumulate like the scum on a sea quantum foam.
You know what's really funny. That if Trump's tariffs can slow down China's manufacturing sector growth even a little, it will do more to lessen global CO2 output than if we mandated all new US autos to be EVs.
Why isn't it reasonable? What are these various reasons?
As far as the constitutionality, the "exclusive right" applies to patents as well. How come FRAND patent licensing hasn't been shot down in courts yet? Copyright owners would still have the "exclusive right" to choose the terms of their license and FRAND wouldn't violate that. The terms would still be solely up to them. It would just mean that they cannot exclude another entity from accepting equivalent terms.
Exactly this. It's exclusive licensing that allows for the balkanization of content among increasingly various streaming services. Instead, we should insist on FRAND type licensing like we do for many patents. That along with separating the content creation from distribution will allow a competitive market to develop rather than the monopoly on creative content we are trending toward.
I live in Phoenix, AZ and I'm against DST. It's not helpful and even if we were to change the clock, it should be in the opposite direction. Since there's no universally better time system, let's just stick with centering days close to solar noon and let people adjust their work schedules as they wish rather than mandate it via time changes.
You don't necessarily need causality defying magic. He was saying that there are some people who can change their situation with effort and there are those who can't. Since you don't know for sure which you are, being optimistic and trying to do something about it is a better approach than being a nihilist. The former has a chance of working while the latter does not.
That's the problem with saying that science predetermines your lot in the world exclusively. It's an excuse for those who face a little adversity to give up when they could otherwise push through and succeed. So, while there's no evidence that an internally controlled "will power" even exists, I will choose to believe in it. The alternative of accepting a deterministic fate is less likely to lead me to success, whether that choice is an illusion or not.
Bill of Materials. It's the list of components that make up a product, usually including details like cost, weight and procurement information for each line item.
A CT scanner isn't a MRI. Rather, it's a fancy x-ray machine that computes the density of what is being scanned in 3D. Metal is not a problem for these machines.
In theory, they could potentially distinguish between real toothpaste and a tube of high explosive based on the difference in density. Although, I don't know how different such things will appear in reality and it could easily be fooled by mixing in modifiers to give the same x-ray absorption as the item they are intending to mimic.
Again, demanding that a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term gives that woman less autonomy than any non-pregnant person, and it gives more rights to a fetus than any born personâ"even a newly born baby would have less right to demand the organs and living body of another person than a 2nd trimester fetus, in that case. It makes no sense.
I agree that no one should be compelled to give up their body for the benefit of another. Although, that isn't the situation we are considering. It's the question of whether they can withdraw support of another, once provided, when the other's life depends on it. I think that depends pretty strongly on whether that support was given willingly or taken forcibly.
It seems to me that the bodily autonomy argument is at odds with itself in these scenarios. It doesn't apply for twins who had no choice to be conjoined, yet it does apply for a pregnant woman regardless of whether she made the choice to get pregnant or not? Help me understand how those fit together.
Even if we just limit the discussion to abortion, does bodily autonomy still apply if the woman willing became pregnant? If so, why can she withdraw her support for the child at will after already committing that support? It wouldn't be morally acceptable for a kidney donor to demand their organ back.
Bodily autonomy isn't as clear cut as it sounds. In the case of conjoined twins where one is reliant on the other. Does the bodily autonomy of the more independent twin override the right to life of the other one? Can one unilaterally decide to separate, even against the other's will and regardless of whether they are otherwise healthy?
Of course, this is a moral question, not a legal one. I don't propose making laws to bar everything that happens to be immoral. But the corollary is that not everything that is legal is morally correct.
You consider it ending a life. That's a conclusion you've reached based on your values and reasoning. Other people evaluate that differently.
I don't "consider it" ending human life. It is ending human life. An embryo is alive and has a unique set of human DNA post-conception. Where is there room for interpretation? Do you deny that they have human DNA or that they are alive?
When does someone become human enough for their life to have value. If it isn't at the start, then when? Any other definition has seriously fucked up consequences like people losing their humanity because they have a disability or are temporarily unconscious.
That is why I say that considering abortion to be nothing more than "reproductive choice" is reprehensible.
You say that I'm just not open to alternative interpretations. That's true, but only because there aren't any others that can be held consistently without devaluing human life to the point where gross atrocities can be justified.
First of all, I'm not a pro-life advocate. I oppose laws that that try to ban abortions. So I'd probably be more likely to side with you than them on most legislation.
The essence of the pro-choice movement is that it is the choice of the individual. That they should be allowed to make that choice based on their own evaluation of the 'weight' of that choice and that other people, like yourself, imposing what _you_ think is an appropriate 'weight' is an imposition on their right to self-determination
This "argument" could be applied to anything. Claiming that you're making a choice while pretending that no one else affected is just deluding yourself. Moral relativism has to have a limit. If ending a life isn't something that universally has some substantial ethical weight, then you're really just advocating for anarchy.
Abortion is intentionally ending a life that would continue without that intervention. Trying to deny that the foetus is alive or that it can't feel yet or that it isnt a "person" is just rationalizing.
And I might adopt. My wife and I are trying to have a child. If it turns out that we can't do so naturally, we will be looking into adoption.
I don't want to take away choice. I just want it to only be exercised in rare circumstances after the weight of the ethical question is fully considered.
It isn't just a question of "reproductive autonomy". It is taking a life and should be treated that way.
You are incurring the mental cost and inconvenience of me having to deal with your horribleness as a person. Should I have the right to choose to end your life because of that? No? Then there's some threshold where someone's life outweighs the temporary inconvenience of another.
By the way, there's a more humane way to avoid the legal and financial liability part. It's called adoption.
If the pro-choice advocates would treat the decision with the weight it deserves, I'd be more amenable to their position. But they treat it like the expectant mother is weighing the ethics of removing a benign mole rather than whether they should separate conjoined twins when one will die because of it.
Sure, there are some cases where sacrificing one life to save the other is the least terrible solution. So I do not want laws that proscribe the outcome without considering the circumstances. But those that promote abortion as simply a choice of whether a woman wants a baby or not deserve the "pro-baby-murder" label.
There's nothing stopping you from collectively negotiating in "right to work" states. You just can't force those who wish to negotiate on their own to participate in your group.
Slashdot Mirror
Too cheap to be presented in 1080p or 4K, yeah.
Either do something that actually takes advantage of the capabilities of the format or just produce it in 480p or 720p and spend that money on better storylines, writing and acting.
Or maybe they could just fix the problems with costumes and set dressing.
but interpolation is not a higher framerate, any more than zooming in on a jpg gives it a higher resolution.
That's not exactly true. It depends on the content of the scene. If we are talking about something simple like pan/tilt of the camera across a static background, then interpolation can recreate the missing frames just as if it was filmed at a higher frame rate. The opposite end of the spectrum is when the frame is full of objects that are moving dynamically in relationship to each other in addition to camera motion. In that case, the interpolated frames will distort the shapes and/or trajectories of the objects, which makes the movement look unnatural.
Most video content has varying degrees of this, so some scenes will look great with motion interpolation and others will look over-smoothed. Still, for the content I watch, I think the benefits tend to outweigh the drawbacks.
The obvious gap here is how the "dark fluid" is continuously created. Even if the theory fits all cosmological observations, that would still need to be explained.
The only thing I can think of is that it would accumulate like the scum on a sea quantum foam.
I hear Roddy Piper has some sunglasses that might do the trick.
You know what's really funny. That if Trump's tariffs can slow down China's manufacturing sector growth even a little, it will do more to lessen global CO2 output than if we mandated all new US autos to be EVs.
Why isn't it reasonable? What are these various reasons?
As far as the constitutionality, the "exclusive right" applies to patents as well. How come FRAND patent licensing hasn't been shot down in courts yet? Copyright owners would still have the "exclusive right" to choose the terms of their license and FRAND wouldn't violate that. The terms would still be solely up to them. It would just mean that they cannot exclude another entity from accepting equivalent terms.
They are backlit, but many new displays will dim or turn off the backlight in darker regions of the screen.
Exactly this. It's exclusive licensing that allows for the balkanization of content among increasingly various streaming services. Instead, we should insist on FRAND type licensing like we do for many patents. That along with separating the content creation from distribution will allow a competitive market to develop rather than the monopoly on creative content we are trending toward.
I live in Phoenix, AZ and I'm against DST. It's not helpful and even if we were to change the clock, it should be in the opposite direction. Since there's no universally better time system, let's just stick with centering days close to solar noon and let people adjust their work schedules as they wish rather than mandate it via time changes.
You don't necessarily need causality defying magic. He was saying that there are some people who can change their situation with effort and there are those who can't. Since you don't know for sure which you are, being optimistic and trying to do something about it is a better approach than being a nihilist. The former has a chance of working while the latter does not.
That's the problem with saying that science predetermines your lot in the world exclusively. It's an excuse for those who face a little adversity to give up when they could otherwise push through and succeed. So, while there's no evidence that an internally controlled "will power" even exists, I will choose to believe in it. The alternative of accepting a deterministic fate is less likely to lead me to success, whether that choice is an illusion or not.
Bill of Materials. It's the list of components that make up a product, usually including details like cost, weight and procurement information for each line item.
A CT scanner isn't a MRI. Rather, it's a fancy x-ray machine that computes the density of what is being scanned in 3D. Metal is not a problem for these machines.
In theory, they could potentially distinguish between real toothpaste and a tube of high explosive based on the difference in density. Although, I don't know how different such things will appear in reality and it could easily be fooled by mixing in modifiers to give the same x-ray absorption as the item they are intending to mimic.
I didn't think those minivans could go over 1000 mph.
I know keyboards can be gross, but they are infinitely better than bed pans.
The Force ... uh ... Worsens?
Again, demanding that a woman be forced to carry a pregnancy to term gives that woman less autonomy than any non-pregnant person, and it gives more rights to a fetus than any born personâ"even a newly born baby would have less right to demand the organs and living body of another person than a 2nd trimester fetus, in that case. It makes no sense.
I agree that no one should be compelled to give up their body for the benefit of another. Although, that isn't the situation we are considering. It's the question of whether they can withdraw support of another, once provided, when the other's life depends on it. I think that depends pretty strongly on whether that support was given willingly or taken forcibly.
It seems to me that the bodily autonomy argument is at odds with itself in these scenarios. It doesn't apply for twins who had no choice to be conjoined, yet it does apply for a pregnant woman regardless of whether she made the choice to get pregnant or not? Help me understand how those fit together.
Even if we just limit the discussion to abortion, does bodily autonomy still apply if the woman willing became pregnant? If so, why can she withdraw her support for the child at will after already committing that support? It wouldn't be morally acceptable for a kidney donor to demand their organ back.
Bodily autonomy isn't as clear cut as it sounds. In the case of conjoined twins where one is reliant on the other. Does the bodily autonomy of the more independent twin override the right to life of the other one? Can one unilaterally decide to separate, even against the other's will and regardless of whether they are otherwise healthy?
Of course, this is a moral question, not a legal one. I don't propose making laws to bar everything that happens to be immoral. But the corollary is that not everything that is legal is morally correct.
You consider it ending a life. That's a conclusion you've reached based on your values and reasoning. Other people evaluate that differently.
I don't "consider it" ending human life. It is ending human life. An embryo is alive and has a unique set of human DNA post-conception. Where is there room for interpretation? Do you deny that they have human DNA or that they are alive?
When does someone become human enough for their life to have value. If it isn't at the start, then when? Any other definition has seriously fucked up consequences like people losing their humanity because they have a disability or are temporarily unconscious.
That is why I say that considering abortion to be nothing more than "reproductive choice" is reprehensible.
You say that I'm just not open to alternative interpretations. That's true, but only because there aren't any others that can be held consistently without devaluing human life to the point where gross atrocities can be justified.
First of all, I'm not a pro-life advocate. I oppose laws that that try to ban abortions. So I'd probably be more likely to side with you than them on most legislation.
The essence of the pro-choice movement is that it is the choice of the individual. That they should be allowed to make that choice based on their own evaluation of the 'weight' of that choice and that other people, like yourself, imposing what _you_ think is an appropriate 'weight' is an imposition on their right to self-determination
This "argument" could be applied to anything. Claiming that you're making a choice while pretending that no one else affected is just deluding yourself. Moral relativism has to have a limit. If ending a life isn't something that universally has some substantial ethical weight, then you're really just advocating for anarchy.
Abortion is intentionally ending a life that would continue without that intervention. Trying to deny that the foetus is alive or that it can't feel yet or that it isnt a "person" is just rationalizing.
And I might adopt. My wife and I are trying to have a child. If it turns out that we can't do so naturally, we will be looking into adoption.
I don't want to take away choice. I just want it to only be exercised in rare circumstances after the weight of the ethical question is fully considered.
It isn't just a question of "reproductive autonomy". It is taking a life and should be treated that way.
You are incurring the mental cost and inconvenience of me having to deal with your horribleness as a person. Should I have the right to choose to end your life because of that? No? Then there's some threshold where someone's life outweighs the temporary inconvenience of another.
By the way, there's a more humane way to avoid the legal and financial liability part. It's called adoption.
If the pro-choice advocates would treat the decision with the weight it deserves, I'd be more amenable to their position. But they treat it like the expectant mother is weighing the ethics of removing a benign mole rather than whether they should separate conjoined twins when one will die because of it.
Sure, there are some cases where sacrificing one life to save the other is the least terrible solution. So I do not want laws that proscribe the outcome without considering the circumstances. But those that promote abortion as simply a choice of whether a woman wants a baby or not deserve the "pro-baby-murder" label.
There's nothing stopping you from collectively negotiating in "right to work" states. You just can't force those who wish to negotiate on their own to participate in your group.