As I understand it, in many countries bandwidth is and may well remain metered. The telephone companies detest flat rate phone service and would much rather charge us by the minute for local calls. I suspect the general public might not accept pay-by-the-megabyte plans for next then cell phones, though so we may get lucky anyway.
Can anyone produce a video rendered first with out blur and possibly grain, then the same thing with blur and grain? I'm well aware that people see motion with blur, but is it critical the camera capture it that way? I love seeing video without blur because I can take in EVERYTHING. I want to see a car peel around a corner and as startled people on the sidewalk jump backwards, catch thier expressions. When they're blury because the camera is focused on the car, I can't do that.
Another related question; can CG be rendered with a faked focus field and still look believable? When I look out at a mountian and see trees in the foreground, my eyes can only focus on the back or foreground. With CG, the focus can be faked so I can see both clearly. Can this be done when the goal is photo-realism and still look believable to the audience? It won't have the same effect people are used to, but that's their problem.
I see film as an inhibitor to the future of movies. People are set in their expectations of what a movie should look like. CG has the opportunity to buck this trend and show people a vision not constrained by the camera, but by the imagination and budget of the creators.
Photo-realistic? Not quite, but close. For all the effort tha was put into his facial textures, his skin is still static. Real skin is wet, yet oily. Its this partially reflective/shiny, yet dull look that is still eluding photo-realistic people. Look at the female star of the movie. Now compare her face to the computer generated Rock in The Mummy Returns. What's wrong with both these people? Their face is too uniform. The Rock's forehead is practically blank and refective. Both lack the detail we expect. Why does the Doctor is FF look so much more real than the heroine? Because he has textures of age and living life that cover up the fact that his skin looks plastic-like.
What ever a card can do in realtime, all I have to do is double what it's doing and boom, I need another card. I can always add more detail to a scene, like making the renderer take into account the gentle pressure of a man's body hairs against his clothing.
You can only play one game at a time?!? It's 70 cents per game too and I'll have to delete it when I'm done so I can make a stinking call or at least do anything useful with it? Hell no! If the phone makers won't put a 32MB chip inside like in the new Providian "smart" credit cards to hold a small library of games this isn't worth it at all. It seems to me instead of making cell phones with larger screens the goal should be to make clam-shell PDA's that open like a glasses case. True the screen is broken at the middle but it still has most of it's functionality. Now put a number pad for dialing on one side of the screen, tell it the number to dial, close it up and stick it next to your ear.
It's one thing to play games on a Game Boy, which was designed for this, but will it really work to try and play centipede on a screen so small? I'm wary of trying to use a directional pad that's half the size of a Game Boys. Will this eat batteries like crazy? How about with constant back light use? If a game requires jamming on a button, it was easy with a Game Boy because holding it with two hands was no problem, but cell phones are smaller than a pack of cigarettes now.
I hope she makes it clear to Rogers that they are obligated to provide what they advertised and then worry about profits. Signing up as many customers as possible so they can get butt raped is not an acceptable way to do business. Oh, and that line about survivor was a subtle joke that didn't come across very well in print but just might work in a court room if delivered well.
Flamebait is a "posting" or note on a bulletin board, a Usenet newsgroup, a Web site, or other public forum that is intended to elicit the extremely strong responses characteristic of flaming and active public discussions. To be effective, flamebait should be a bit subtle (but not too subtle) so that potential flamers will "take the bait." This term is similar to troll, which is an effort to get a reaction from
readers but not necessarily for the purpose of eliciting flames.
Okay so Elvis and Monty Python will have staying power for eons because of the underlying quality of it. The original post was saying that times have changed and there is now programming more funny than Monty Python based on subjective values. Some of what people find funny is subjective, though there seem to be some world-wide constants. Are you claiming that goodness can be measured by popularity? Goodness is subjective. Star Trek was good but not popular when it was broadcast...
World-wide fame does not equal goodness. I disagree that Full House is more funny than Monty Python but it's obscurity does not diminish its quality. How many Elvis songs do geeks still like today? Go back thirty years and I guarantee many more geeks liked Elvis. He was a star the world over, but his popularity does not make his songs as good today as they were then.
Now we finally get our first look at how much the music companies think their music is worth/can gouge the consumer for. The annoying part is when Vivendi wants two dollars per song and finds almost no takers it'll cry to the world that we're all just theives out to take advantage of the poor starvings artists.
At least now it will be more difficult for the cheaters to cheat. I'm sure the drivers will live for years on warez sites, but the cheaters will have to suffer through endless pages of porn banners to get them. Some of them might even not bother and play fair. At the very least there will be less cheaters using the drivers so when we go to play games online there will be less chance we end up with a cheater against us.
So you espoused most everything I said except that you think the law is looking at this from the point of view of RIAA and MPAA executives? I think not. The execs push legislation through, and they can try to make the laws fit their business model, but they can't get the laws tailor made for them...well the DMCA comes close. True the laws are messed up now because of the execs, but the EFF is more concerned about the law, and to the law this is about the pros and cons of file sharing/encryption.
Sharing files is not illegal. Networks that share files aren't illegal either. So suggesting in your original post -what if flying was illegal- doesn't hold up. What's at issue is IP infringement which hurts the companies that own the IP. This isn't about compaines railroads loosing out because of a paradigm shift in how people want to travel. It's about defending P2P networks as valid tools for commercial and personal use in the face of mounting evidence that they cause great harm allowing the circumvention of existing laws regarding IP.
It's hard to argue airplanes are inherently dangerous to people or in this case, business and IP. There is already plenty of evidence that P2P can cause harm, hense the DMCA and lawsuits. The EFF is attempting to show that P2P isn't all bad. Just like Sony needed to prove that VCRs had a good number of non-infringing legitimate uses.
So what happens if one of the pads fail when you're 100 meters up? The computer will not let you have more than one pad loose. So if one pad will not connect to the building anymore you're screwed.
You're missing the point. This should be about FAIR USE. Why should we let our fair use rights be slowly eroded just because IP owners want to make more money from us?
By his logic getting up between shows to grab a drink is stealing television since you're watching the show but not the adds. I suppose he thinks that channel surfing or using the mute button to silence commercials is a bad thing as well. Perhaps he'd like to force us to look at the billboards we drive past. If we choose not to view advertising that's our choice. Advertisers don't like us for that but that's their problem. Long live TIVO.
Slashdot Mirror
Another related question; can CG be rendered with a faked focus field and still look believable? When I look out at a mountian and see trees in the foreground, my eyes can only focus on the back or foreground. With CG, the focus can be faked so I can see both clearly. Can this be done when the goal is photo-realism and still look believable to the audience? It won't have the same effect people are used to, but that's their problem.
I see film as an inhibitor to the future of movies. People are set in their expectations of what a movie should look like. CG has the opportunity to buck this trend and show people a vision not constrained by the camera, but by the imagination and budget of the creators.
Photo-realistic? Not quite, but close. For all the effort tha was put into his facial textures, his skin is still static. Real skin is wet, yet oily. Its this partially reflective/shiny, yet dull look that is still eluding photo-realistic people. Look at the female star of the movie. Now compare her face to the computer generated Rock in The Mummy Returns. What's wrong with both these people? Their face is too uniform. The Rock's forehead is practically blank and refective. Both lack the detail we expect. Why does the Doctor is FF look so much more real than the heroine? Because he has textures of age and living life that cover up the fact that his skin looks plastic-like.
Or lack thereof that's easy for everyone to use.
What ever a card can do in realtime, all I have to do is double what it's doing and boom, I need another card. I can always add more detail to a scene, like making the renderer take into account the gentle pressure of a man's body hairs against his clothing.