Since Dr. Felten is theoretically doing the analysis and finding problems, now Sequoia would state that the State is in violation of a contractual agreement. Do they really want to get into a spitting match where all the voters who voted via a Sequoia machine could potentially file a class action lawsuit against the company for disenfranchising voters by not counting their votes correctly?
Or --more likely -- are they putting out the legal contract mumbo-jumbo to threaten NJ in order to avoid that exact scenario?
Where a truly intelligent voting machine company would do something smart like, say, having an independent commission produce a certification that the machine works properly, with the specification that the internals to the voting machine are only available in limited --but still auditable ways in case of dispute?
Okay, so let's say that a company starts using EPIC type stuff in their chip layouts, and it's all transparent to me the end user, can't be used for underhanded DRM, etc. I'm also buying off on the idea that with a unique key combination for the chip/board combo etc. kept by the manufacturer would be a great way to block a "pirate" chip from being used, etc.
But I don't see any way to secure an "EPIC" chip after the fact unless the "unlock" is burned into PROM circuitry, and I don't know if there is any way for a patent holder to use a 'Net connection in a manufacturing facility quickly enough to be useful and still secure enough to prevent an unscrupulous set if engineers from reverse engineering how the combinations work and duplicating it offline.
Agreed. My comment -- and what I am thinking you agree with me on, if indirectly -- is that the gaping loopholes exist and allow the system to be gamed because of prior governmental meddling in patent law to favor the big corporations over the small inventors.
As one of/. innumberable IANAL types, I can't comment directly, but the fact that the court wishes to "revisit" a decision that basically allowed business method patents to come into existence seems to be a positive development, especially because it sounds like either way, the decision will be appealed and SCOTUS put in a position to make a definitive ruling, which will resolve the question one way or the other. Or find a middle way.
Certainly I don't think "one click" et. al are inventions -- they are implementations of an idea accomplished high speed by other peoples inventions. But there isn't a device in "one click", ergo in my mind there was nothing to patent. So my hope would be that the ruling would also go back to more of the founding father's desires to give individual inventors rights to market their own technological devices for a limited period of time, not the great big multinational corporations, who tend to use and abuse the system as much as possible.
Just found it for Firefox 3.0 Beta (3)
on
Acid3 Test Released
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
Passes 59 tests in Xp. Interesting Stats:
37 of the tests that fail in FF 2.X are also fails in FF 3.0 beta.
Three of the fails are significantly different, not sure if this means progress or not
1 fail is a minor difference
Firefox 2 passed a test (#69) that FF 3 did not
and finally, FF 3.0 passes 8 tests directly that FF 2.0 does not.
That said, I looked at a couple of the notes on Bugzilla for Firefox and they are already looking at the bug list... wonder who will be the fastest to fix the most....
Shift click on the A in Acid, it gives you a list. My latest Firefox (2.0.0.12) got a 50, the latest Firefox 3.0 beta build did better Results momentarily.
What would be really useful....
on
Acid3 Test Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Is if there was a way to not only get a copy of the acid test fails, but a quick list of which browsers fail which test and what that should mean. So that us legions of OS coders or even Mozilla, Opera, or Safari's own guys could get busy and fix it in their next releases.
Anyone have this or know some web location where it's happening?
So let's see. What the women-oppressing child and baby maiming terrorist want is for the major networks to turn off the ability of the populace to name names and point to places by thoe terrorists hang out because them darn 'mricans have a habit of showing up with nasty explosive devices and very accurate bullet-firing devices that make it hard to do the business of oppression and death as usual.
So sorry. I think the 'mrican soldier's ability to mostly differentiate between the bad guys and the rest of the population has about two hundred years of ethical tradition behind it, so I'll go with letting the cell phone networks stay on.
Any Talibani warriors who disagree are welcome to call into their respective cell phone provider networks and complain.
While all of this sounds great, as far as I can tell most of the stuff being offered is in English. Which is great, but why isn't there more of a movement to recreate the most important bits of knowledge -- public sanitation and mosquito control are two big ones -- as part of an educational program that can be stuffed onto a DVD and shipped out. Why are we only hearing about college textbooks, etc. which -- hello out there? are mostly what those of us who have been in the armed services used to refer to as "chloroform in print" or whose relevancy to real world problems is scant at best?
Simply put -- why aren't we hearing about a focus on education that matters -- in the languages of those who need it most?
So, now the Federal government is supposed to require institutions to deny my free speech rights, by setting up filtering regimes that may or may not allow me to share copyrighted materials peer to peer-- even if I own the copyright on the stuff I am sharing.
Anyone else besides me think the SCOTUS would wipe that particular provision off the books the moment that Harvard, Yale, et. al go to war with the RIAA? Hint: those two schools alone have more legal ability backing them and all the financial resources required to go to legally go to war, and in fact, more than all the RIAA companies combined. Not to mention that the RIAA really really really doesn't want to piss of Stanford, because the majority of the RIAA companies are in California, and it's not that far a drive from Stanford to any State court where they would choose to go to war themselves.
My question is, why aren't our congressmen and women smart enough to vote that particular piece of junk OUT of the bill?
I think you miss the point of an OpenID in active use.
Basically what the framework does is to let me -- by my choice of OpenID providers (or if I become one) to basically have a trusted source that basically says "the person using this account has been authenticated by OpenID provider XYZ. I don't have my provider set up (via the PHP implementation) yet, but when it is operational, what I can do is connect to other OpenID enabled sites that accept provider URLs (the relying parties) and never type a plain text password, etc. into their site, as (to my knowledge, which is not great at this point but I am studying it now) the authentication takes place at the header level and is or at least can be encoded. The authentication itself doesn't contain anything about my online identity, so there's really nothing to steal.
Shame on you. While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him. I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous. If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
Um, no. I lived in Arizona back then and to my recollection, McCain was exonerated -- he was basically asked to speak in support of a very deceptive individual (Charles Keating) after he was asked to by the Senior senator from Arizona (Dennis DeConcini, who really was a political scumbag who profited from inside knowledge on governmental contracts many many times). Three of the "Keating five" were strongly implicated, but according to this Slate article: In February 1991, the Senate Ethics Committee found McCain and (John) Glenn to be the least blameworthy of the five senators. (McCain and Glenn attended the meetings but did nothing else to influence the regulators.) McCain was guilty of nothing more than "poor judgment," the committee said, and declared his actions were not "improper nor attended with gross negligence." McCain considered the committee's judgment to be "full exoneration," and he contributed $112,000 (the amount raised for him by Keating) to the U.S. Treasury.
Your comments confuse the issue: though I am not pro-Romney I am also not anti-Christian or anti-Mormon -- who at least compared to some of the other churches out there have a doctrine of believe in letting folks practice their own brand of religion (Huckabees included) without badmouthing or governmental interference, so a religious agenda isn't really part of what we're debating. It is only when Huckabee does not distance his religiouis beliefs from his political ones that I part company in terms of my trust AKA my vote, and it is when Romney espoused positions were contrary to the stated doctrines of his church that I part company and will not give him my vote. I will not trust someone who is so totally intolerant, nor one whose positions border on hypocritical pandering in the search for government office. I had enough of that with Mr. Clinton and co. Including Hillary.
In contrast, I disagree with John McCain on several issues (primarily in the area of corporate business incentives vs. lowered spending and de-federalization resulting in lower taxes) -- but he will probably get my vote in spite of the fact that he is also a Christian because he at least practices what he preaches -- fiscal conservatism, governmental responsibility, big-stick diplomacy (which in some ways is roughly the same as it was in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- "don't mess with the American citizens, lest we come stomp on yer heads"). Is he right? I don't know. But in the primary, he gets my vote.
In the general election? I don't know. Depends on whether or not he is nominated, and whether the other person I consider to be an honest candidate (Obama) gets through as well.
Bottom line? I support people with a reputation for telling the truth.
While this sounds cool, it interests me more because of the fact that the Open Computer Vision algorithms are open sourced and in this case by Intel's research groups. While I might prefer if another microprocessor company was more dominant, there are some areas where Intel's interests diverge from the unholy Wintel alliance, and in these areas they do some really good stuff.
The problem is that as far as I know, trademarks aren't really all that significant in terms of coverage by the DMCA. I would find it hard to see how Hasbro could argue trademark dilution for that reason.
So in a pure sense, if a game-board design that looks somewhat like the Scrabble board doesn't qualify for copyright protection, and game rules are ideas that can't be copyrighted, then how can a facebook scrabble run-alike be infringing? That would be like arguing that a chess program infringes because it's online board somehow resembles the design of a particular company's printed chess board, wouldn't it?
So I think whoever created Scabulous etc. and a good ambulance chaser type of attorney would be more than happy to have Hasbro come down on them. So that they can go hog-wild countersuing Hasbro for whatever version of corporate harassment that they can claim damages under. Thoughts?
Three tidbits up front: I am very very good at most flavors of SQL, good with XML, but only fair on reading W3C standards documents. Which means that I stand a fair-to-middling chance of understanding what in the heck they are trying to say with "SPARQL"
And after reading the standard, most of the articles, and looking at a couple of implementations, not only have I hit arbitrary but fairly high limits on what I will put up with before my eyes glaze over, I've also hit the 'don't give a s--- limitation as well.
One of their projects reports having indexed and interlinked "over two billion RDF triples, which are interlinked by around 3 million RDF links (October 2007)". Well frabulous. And so what??? Even looking at their graphic for all of the different databits that they have linked in, I don't find myself all that interested for a simple reason: to use the information with any kind of speed, I still have to take the data I can acquire and convert it into something that I can structure into a high speed high power database locally.
Which means secondarily that really what I want more is for other smart people to take the interlinked documents and the associated data and mine it and put it out in some location where I can use the data en-masse and at high speed for my own purposes. Not to learn yet another SQL variant that on it's best day will still be dog-slow.
I guess what I am saying is that -- while I understand the goals and purposes of the semantic web and the tools including SPARQL that are being developed for it-- I don't know when or even if the glaze factor will ever be low enough to capture my interest enough vs. looking for or maybe even buying the data that someone else has aggregated from the Semantic web. Thoughts?
Revoke special corporate rights, i.e. those that give corporations essentially more rights than individuals. This includes large parts of the Copyright Extension act and chunks of the DMCA
Veto every damn special interest and earmarked bill out of Congress until the damn Senators and House of Reps get it right.
Define contributions to political campaigns from corporate, and governmental / quasi-governmental unions from as being a conflict of interest and therefore illegal for any legislator receiving that kind of campaign funds. It's illegal for judges, why not for the representative branch of government?
Finally, if I'm allowed one more, it would be to do a combined health care/social security fix that also incorporates an effective way of allowing more workers, not less, into the American economy as tax payers, not tax consumers and therefore at some point puts many more people on the path to become US Citizens. It worked for our forefathers in making America stronger, why wouldn't it work for us now?
There's been numerous times I thought of a good domain name, only to have it disappear within minutes or hours, and worse yet -- see it marketed by the registrar that I used to "check" the who is. You know the type, "get this web site address, going fast, etc." Next thing you know unethical registrars will be making an ebay type two way interface for domain names with the timings coincidentally matched to auction off my good idea for a name with the expiration for the domain being just before they'd have to pay NSI or someone else for it. Or some such equally corrupt practice.
Because ICANN is not real high on public accountability as opposed to corporate interests. my question is this: why should we should be surprised that ICANN doesn't stomp this out?
The problem is that there are ways to game parts of the license in an unscrupulous manner that make it somewhat business risky to use a CC licensed image, unless as a company you do the proper amount of paperwork to document your license.
My reading of this is, "no problem so long as the source for the cc licensed image source is the original producer" because no publisher in their right mind should use ANY image without the proper license contract in hand, but if the licensor isn't the source of the original, the company may be using a fraudulently obtained resource. Seems sort of like the fact that f a company passes on a counterfeit bill, the US Treasury comes down on them like a ton of bricks, even if they weren't the original producer of the bogus bill.
My question is, can the CC licensing schemes be fixed to provide a layer of protection, or not?
How about two classes of copyright -- because it would be hard to say that anyone but the Disney Corp. should have rights to Mickey Mouse. But that doesn't mean that Disney Corp. should have the right to every last dime from every last project they ever spent a nickel on. Similarly, the creators of content such as music -- why not let them retain copyright on their work for a longer period of time -- but take away the corporate interest in it. Why should the fact that Sony et. al marketed a particular piece of music twenty years ago give them copyright interest in it?
Secondarily, a straight copyright cutback isn't exactly the answer for unpublished works either -- I can copyright something this year to protect it, and still not have it published for years and years. Do I lose the right to my own work after that?
So how about a discussion about what individual and corporate copyrights should look like, and how to regulate both -- perhaps leading to fair and effective legislation for the public interest and the artists for a change?
Is faster than anything I owned in the 1990s with a bit less permanent memory.
Seems to me I remember the day when a 640K operating system and a 40Meg disk were king, so having 1.5 Gig left over to play with after the OS is loaded --that's like luxury space. Oh, and I can go back and get more permanent memory if I delete some stuff if won't ever use, can add and subtract multiple versions of multi-gigabyte portable (SD) memory, and if I use a USB Wifi stick, I can connect even to the web at pretty good speed?
What this thing is is portable. Medium powered. Flexible. Ideal for a Linux person like me who would like to have a road warrior unit he can live with -- without the backache.
Okay, I'll bite... Ummm....movies are filmed, edited and post-processed in digital format.
Correction. A FEW movies are filmed completely in digital format, with the trend to increase in the future. Even the Lord of the Rings has it's color scale and scope primarily because the main images on the frames are still mostly shot on film, with all of the digital wizardry layered over the top. That said, nearly all editing is now digital, and the resulting film may or may not be digitally post processed. But to contain the full contrast and color ratios available, it still takes at least one layer of true filmed background.
Oh, you're comparing professional studio equipment to 8-bit digital cameras...
No, I'm comparing 35mm film to 35mm digital. The resolution for a full frame 35mm image based on Kodachrome has been estimated to be as high as 6000px by 4000px by 36 bits -- 24 bits of color and 12 bits of luminance. So a half frame 35mm would be half that. Current pro-rig 35mm digital cameras have about 12 megapixels, which is enough for a good enlargement up to about 20x24 without tricks.
...I don't think they'll be using DVDs for this....
Neither do I. But the comparison between DVDs and film in a can is useful, no?
Well, ya could do that. Hoping of course that there's no electromagnetic pulse, that the hard drives are accessible in 50 years, etc., that the data error rate and file structures don't get scrambled at all.
Or ya could store it in film in the can-- seems like the rate of decay for Kodachrome was supposed to be about 180 years before Kodak pulled it [due to Fuji's competitive product Velvia making the K-14 process obsolete, by the way], and scan it into whatever digital format you need in 50 or 100 years....
How the PDF conveniently ignores the fact that they show a full end to end content to revenue pathway for Yahoo, third party tools *sniff* MSN because other ad frameworks that just aren't competitive with Google.
Yah, uh-huh, right.
Fact is, I don't have to advertise ON Google, and I don't have to get my content FROM Google. I may not be as successful, but heck, I was just trying to use ebay to sell cool widgets in my home town ANYWAY.
Slashdot Mirror
Or --more likely -- are they putting out the legal contract mumbo-jumbo to threaten NJ in order to avoid that exact scenario?
Where a truly intelligent voting machine company would do something smart like, say, having an independent commission produce a certification that the machine works properly, with the specification that the internals to the voting machine are only available in limited --but still auditable ways in case of dispute?
What think ye?
transparent to me the end user, can't be used for underhanded DRM, etc. I'm also buying off on the
idea that with a unique key combination for the chip/board combo etc. kept by the manufacturer would
be a great way to block a "pirate" chip from being used, etc.
But I don't see any way to secure an "EPIC" chip after the fact unless the "unlock" is burned into PROM
circuitry, and I don't know if there is any way for a patent holder to use a 'Net connection in a
manufacturing facility quickly enough to be useful and still secure enough to prevent an unscrupulous
set if engineers from reverse engineering how the combinations work and duplicating it offline.
Thoughts?
Agreed. My comment -- and what I am thinking you agree with me on, if indirectly -- is that the gaping loopholes exist and allow the system to be gamed because of prior governmental meddling in patent law to favor the big corporations over the small inventors.
Certainly I don't think "one click" et. al are inventions -- they are implementations of an idea accomplished high speed by other peoples inventions. But there isn't a device in "one click", ergo in my mind there was nothing to patent. So my hope would be that the ruling would also go back to more of the founding father's desires to give individual inventors rights to market their own technological devices for a limited period of time, not the great big multinational corporations, who tend to use and abuse the system as much as possible.
That said, I looked at a couple of the notes on Bugzilla for Firefox and they are already looking at the bug list... wonder who will be the fastest to fix the most....
Shift click on the A in Acid, it gives you a list. My latest Firefox (2.0.0.12) got a 50, the latest Firefox 3.0 beta build did better Results momentarily.
Is if there was a way to not only get a copy of the acid test fails, but a quick list of which browsers fail which test and what that should mean. So that us legions of OS coders or even Mozilla, Opera, or Safari's own guys could get busy and fix it in their next releases.
Anyone have this or know some web location where it's happening?
So sorry. I think the 'mrican soldier's ability to mostly differentiate between the bad guys and the rest of the population has about two hundred years of ethical tradition behind it, so I'll go with letting the cell phone networks stay on.
Any Talibani warriors who disagree are welcome to call into their respective cell phone provider networks and complain.
Simply put -- why aren't we hearing about a focus on education that matters -- in the languages of those who need it most?
Anyone else besides me think the SCOTUS would wipe that particular provision off the books the moment that Harvard, Yale, et. al go to war with the RIAA? Hint: those two schools alone have more legal ability backing them and all the financial resources required to go to legally go to war, and in fact, more than all the RIAA companies combined. Not to mention that the RIAA really really really doesn't want to piss of Stanford, because the majority of the RIAA companies are in California, and it's not that far a drive from Stanford to any State court where they would choose to go to war themselves.
My question is, why aren't our congressmen and women smart enough to vote that particular piece of junk OUT of the bill?
Basically what the framework does is to let me -- by my choice of OpenID providers (or if I become one) to basically have a trusted source that basically says "the person using this account has been authenticated by OpenID provider XYZ. I don't have my provider set up (via the PHP implementation) yet, but when it is operational, what I can do is connect to other OpenID enabled sites that accept provider URLs (the relying parties) and never type a plain text password, etc. into their site, as (to my knowledge, which is not great at this point but I am studying it now) the authentication takes place at the header level and is or at least can be encoded. The authentication itself doesn't contain anything about my online identity, so there's really nothing to steal.
Shame on you. While I can agree that during the Civil War the power of the executive branch was used in a near tyrannical manner by Lincoln, it was also done acting in his capacity as commander in chief, against a do-nothing, partisan divided congress that wouldn't move a muscle to defend the idea of the Union without Lincoln basically dragging them kicking and screaming along with him. I have never been able to find find one instance where a current court of law would declare his actions as unconstitutional, let alone traitorous. If anything, Lincoln's biggest heresy in terms of modern political thought is that he couldn't figure out a way for the "Negro" population to become part of the white dominated culture of the day. After Lincoln was assasinated, and with the possible exception of Harry Truman who I am only so-so familiar with -- to my knowledge until JFK, RFK, and LBJ, no president really even tried.
Any more bad assertions you'd like to make?
In contrast, I disagree with John McCain on several issues (primarily in the area of corporate business incentives vs. lowered spending and de-federalization resulting in lower taxes) -- but he will probably get my vote in spite of the fact that he is also a Christian because he at least practices what he preaches -- fiscal conservatism, governmental responsibility, big-stick diplomacy (which in some ways is roughly the same as it was in Teddy Roosevelt's day -- "don't mess with the American citizens, lest we come stomp on yer heads"). Is he right? I don't know. But in the primary, he gets my vote.
In the general election? I don't know. Depends on whether or not he is nominated, and whether the other person I consider to be an honest candidate (Obama) gets through as well.
Bottom line? I support people with a reputation for telling the truth.
While this sounds cool, it interests me more because of the fact that the Open Computer Vision algorithms are open sourced and in this case by Intel's research groups. While I might prefer if another microprocessor company was more dominant, there are some areas where Intel's interests diverge from the unholy Wintel alliance, and in these areas they do some really good stuff.
So in a pure sense, if a game-board design that looks somewhat like the Scrabble board doesn't qualify for copyright protection, and game rules are ideas that can't be copyrighted, then how can a facebook scrabble run-alike be infringing? That would be like arguing that a chess program infringes because it's online board somehow resembles the design of a particular company's printed chess board, wouldn't it?
So I think whoever created Scabulous etc. and a good ambulance chaser type of attorney would be more than happy to have Hasbro come down on them. So that they can go hog-wild countersuing Hasbro for whatever version of corporate harassment that they can claim damages under. Thoughts?
And after reading the standard, most of the articles, and looking at a couple of implementations, not only have I hit arbitrary but fairly high limits on what I will put up with before my eyes glaze over, I've also hit the 'don't give a s--- limitation as well.
One of their projects reports having indexed and interlinked "over two billion RDF triples, which are interlinked by around 3 million RDF links (October 2007)". Well frabulous. And so what??? Even looking at their graphic for all of the different databits that they have linked in, I don't find myself all that interested for a simple reason: to use the information with any kind of speed, I still have to take the data I can acquire and convert it into something that I can structure into a high speed high power database locally.
Which means secondarily that really what I want more is for other smart people to take the interlinked documents and the associated data and mine it and put it out in some location where I can use the data en-masse and at high speed for my own purposes. Not to learn yet another SQL variant that on it's best day will still be dog-slow.
I guess what I am saying is that -- while I understand the goals and purposes of the semantic web and the tools including SPARQL that are being developed for it-- I don't know when or even if the glaze factor will ever be low enough to capture my interest enough vs. looking for or maybe even buying the data that someone else has aggregated from the Semantic web. Thoughts?
- Revoke special corporate rights, i.e. those that give corporations essentially more rights than individuals. This includes large parts of the Copyright Extension act and chunks of the DMCA
- Veto every damn special interest and earmarked bill out of Congress until the damn Senators and House of Reps get it right.
- Define contributions to political campaigns from corporate, and governmental / quasi-governmental unions from as being a conflict of interest and therefore illegal for any legislator receiving that kind of campaign funds. It's illegal for judges, why not for the representative branch of government?
Finally, if I'm allowed one more, it would be to do a combined health care/social security fix that also incorporates an effective way of allowing more workers, not less, into the American economy as tax payers, not tax consumers and therefore at some point puts many more people on the path to become US Citizens. It worked for our forefathers in making America stronger, why wouldn't it work for us now?Because ICANN is not real high on public accountability as opposed to corporate interests. my question is this: why should we should be surprised that ICANN doesn't stomp this out?
My reading of this is, "no problem so long as the source for the cc licensed image source is the original producer" because no publisher in their right mind should use ANY image without the proper license contract in hand, but if the licensor isn't the source of the original, the company may be using a fraudulently obtained resource. Seems sort of like the fact that f a company passes on a counterfeit bill, the US Treasury comes down on them like a ton of bricks, even if they weren't the original producer of the bogus bill.
My question is, can the CC licensing schemes be fixed to provide a layer of protection, or not?
Secondarily, a straight copyright cutback isn't exactly the answer for unpublished works either -- I can copyright something this year to protect it, and still not have it published for years and years. Do I lose the right to my own work after that?
So how about a discussion about what individual and corporate copyrights should look like, and how to regulate both -- perhaps leading to fair and effective legislation for the public interest and the artists for a change?
Seems to me I remember the day when a 640K operating system and a 40Meg disk were king, so having 1.5 Gig left over to play with after the OS is loaded --that's like luxury space. Oh, and I can go back and get more permanent memory if I delete some stuff if won't ever use, can add and subtract multiple versions of multi-gigabyte portable (SD) memory, and if I use a USB Wifi stick, I can connect even to the web at pretty good speed?
What this thing is is portable. Medium powered. Flexible. Ideal for a Linux person like me who would like to have a road warrior unit he can live with -- without the backache.
Ummm....movies are filmed, edited and post-processed in digital format.
Correction. A FEW movies are filmed completely in digital format, with the trend to increase in the future. Even the Lord of the Rings has it's color scale and scope primarily because the main images on the frames are still mostly shot on film, with all of the digital wizardry layered over the top. That said, nearly all editing is now digital, and the resulting film may or may not be digitally post processed. But to contain the full contrast and color ratios available, it still takes at least one layer of true filmed background.
Oh, you're comparing professional studio equipment to 8-bit digital cameras...
No, I'm comparing 35mm film to 35mm digital. The resolution for a full frame 35mm image based on Kodachrome has been estimated to be as high as 6000px by 4000px by 36 bits -- 24 bits of color and 12 bits of luminance. So a half frame 35mm would be half that. Current pro-rig 35mm digital cameras have about 12 megapixels, which is enough for a good enlargement up to about 20x24 without tricks.
Neither do I. But the comparison between DVDs and film in a can is useful, no?
Or ya could store it in film in the can-- seems like the rate of decay for Kodachrome was supposed to be about 180 years before Kodak pulled it [due to Fuji's competitive product Velvia making the K-14 process obsolete, by the way], and scan it into whatever digital format you need in 50 or 100 years....
Yah, uh-huh, right.
Fact is, I don't have to advertise ON Google, and I don't have to get my content FROM Google. I may not be as successful, but heck, I was just trying to use ebay to sell cool widgets in my home town ANYWAY.
So where's the monopoly?