As we have seen overt the last 20 years, the capabilities of digital creation/recreation of completely digital characters that are very close to real in all aspects except physical are coming.
I remember reading an article where they've developed technology to create 'virtual works' of great composers. They went from creating a digital 'fingerprint' for their music style, to creating music that would fit that fingerprint. Turns out the great composers followed certain mathematical formulas, or at least formulas could be created to track their music.
As such, voice and mannerisms is getting more and more doable. Though I do think you'll only see the 'greats', both for the effort involved and and amount of material needed to 'play' them. The more versitile actors will be tougher. Reeves is easy, it's just easier to hire him right now. Going by internet sources - Johnny Depp and Gary Oldman are versitile, able to fit themselves to the character more than fitting the character to them.
John Wayne is probably near the top to be computerized - huge source of material to work from, though he's highly typecasted - western followed by military. I think this can make things easier, fewer variables to control, but it would also make it harder to put him into a non-western/WWII/Korean War role. You're also not seeing as many of these movies today either. 'Westerns' are down to one every couple of years, and most war movies are more modern now - Iraq or Afghanistan.
Pretty much this. 99% of all music, movies, and TV shows are, basically, somewhere between 'decent' and 'crap'. But when you're releasing 1-2 movies a week, you're going to get 2 'greats' on average per year.
Even then, while I fondly remember movies such as Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, etc... While they're still good, they seem a bit dated to me today. ID4 is showing it's age.
Still, I'm much more a 'new' movie watcher than a rewatcher. I like the netflix service because I can easily get movies and shows I haven't watched before. I'll go more than a year between urges to view my personal favorite classics. So it doesn't make much sense for me to buy.
I'll echo corbettw here. They're either misinformed, not libertarians, or got a really weird philosophy that doesn't fit into 'standard' libertarian views.
I'm a libertarian and I have no problems with what the feds are doing. As stated, it's federal jurisdiction, ergo federal involvment is the proper level. He WAS threatening people and committing fraud, both crimes with victims, which SHOULD remain crimes. He should get hit hard for what he's done.
It depends. Some hard core libertarians believe there is no such thing as fraud. If you've been "defrauded" it just means you haven't done your research and haven't made good choices. You could have gone out and found out more about this transaction or this seller, etc if you really cared to avoid fraud.
That's a pretty 'hard-core' libertarian then. I generally call myself a moderate. There's a difference between somebody who wins a $200 auction for an Ipod Box(that clearly says 'empty box') and somebody who wins a $200 auction for an Ipod and gets an empty box. One has been defrauded, one is just stupid.
At least the current situation where in general parties are expected to be honest about the information they disclose and to disclose enough in certain transactions that it reduces the likelihood that parties will attempt to defraud others. If there were no legal teeth to enforce those provisions I can only imagine fraud would increase.
This isn't the sort of situation I want to change. I want people to be free to write pretty much whatever contracts they want to, but I also want all parties to be *INFORMED*.
Deliberately misleading, outright lying, misrepresenting, are all things that make a contract one-sided(both parties should benefit). They should be treated harshly.
Now on the other hand there would indeed be less fraud if people held more of the attitude that it was up to them to do their homework to make sure they weren't getting scammed. Those that do don't get scammed much.
We just can't dish out punishments that are disproportionate to a crime.
You know, I hear this arguement alot?
That's the thing about self defense. I'm not being a vigilante when I shoot somebody who's invaded my home, I'm defending myself, it's not about justice or punishment.
That's for if the person survives and is charged, THEN the justice system takes over and may pass sentence and prescribe punishment.
In the home or the alley, it's not punishment; it's defense, even if it kills the attacker. It's just that the same shots with the best chances of stopping an attacker is the best shots at killing.
For the game console, I believe that cellular chips are on the order of $40 each, bought in massive quantities.
For the phone, a d-pad might run $5, but then you also have to redesign the phone to take the input, be handleable while using it, etc...
for the game console, you just make a driver/application to make calls. For the phone, well, you might have to develop a structure to handle the games using it.
In the end, I'm going to say that I think the costs would be about even. Consider that cheap cell phones are a LOT cheaper than a DS or PSP.
Given an android with a better game market, d-pad and such, bigger form factor, antenna, and battery, I think you'd have an easy sale.
My monthly internet and phone costs are amazingly similar, actually. Wtihin $10. $70 for cell phone, $70 for home phone/internet
I'd be more willing to buy unsubsidized phones if the phone companies were willing to give me unsubsidized connection plans.
One thing to remember is that just because the low end of one market overlaps the high end of another, doesn't mean that you're going to get all that many people who buy cheap for one and expensive for the other.
Not many are going to buy a $30k Motorcycle and a $16k econobox car.
Of course, my newest phone was nearly $200(subsidized), my last computer was ~$1000, my last laptop $700.
I don't go with cheap computer equipment; but my computers generally last 6 years(3 mainline, 3 as a server/backup/other). I'm seriously considering a tablet or netbook for my next portable computer; the screen for my phone just isn't big enough for everything.
What about longevity, besides just present installed base? Right now most smart phones are being sold with a 2 year contract; I'm willing to bet that most don't make it lng past that. Most computers probably last 3-5 years. For every geek that buys another computer every year, you probably have at least one apple-fan who upgrades his I-phone whenever a new one comes out, whether it's a year old or just a month.
So sales would have to be ~50% higher for smartphones to merely equal computers, over time.
Anyone with a web browser and the ability to run some javascript can do it.
Question: Does this ability require access to the internet? Because classified networks, on average, don't. The standard user also don't have the ability to install programs.
It becomes one of not so much preventing all leaks, but restricting them to a dozen documents, not 30k or so.
I think they're going to go towards thin-clients. Which means that you won't be directly putting your leak into 'encoded' format for taking out of the workcenter, because even if you have a printer(and those are going away in a lot of places), you won't have the software to do the encoding. Plus, cell phones are already forbidden around classified workstations.
Basically, the 'new' security model is going to end up that to 'leak' documentation you're either going to have to hand write it or sneak in an active digital device like a camera, and even then be restricted to taking pictures one screen at a time. In an area where you're subject to random searches and aren't supposed to have any personal electronics anyways.
as they seem to have no sense of their own history.
And word use changes. Getting nitpicky like what you say would only confuse the message. I try to use words as they're commonly used. The fact remains that I've met 'libertarians' who were closer to anarchists or corporates.
Today, Anarchists are those that want no government. Libertarians are more about limited government.
You may find some branch of anarchism that fits your personal philosophy better than libertarianism does.
Please, I'm too into hierarchy to be an anarchist.
The main reason I'm libertarian is that I disagree with both the democrats and republicans too much. I'm mostly fiscally conservative(Balance the budget, stop wasteful spending!), socially liberal(legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, let people get on with life).
It seems very inadequate that a 19-home sample could be statistically relevant.
It's not a 19 home sample per market because Nielsen measures viewers of a show/network, not a channel. If the channel wants better local information it can pay for the sample itself. We're looking at popularity level for the POTUS, not his popularity in podunk, USA.
There's not a lot of television stations out there today that aren't a part of a national network.
Now, you have a point abouth the suburban/rural homes, if that's true. You also have a point about the granularity, but I don't think that would make all that much difference to the big companies running national ads.
This is measure of relative change which is kinda odd to enforce.
Well, look at it this way - you play the regular program at a lower level than you absolutely have to. Great, good sound range and all that, right? Well - people respond and 'levelize' their own TV by turning up the volume.
Then the commercial comes on and they turn it to the max. Before I shut my TV down, I was getting moments where the commercial was physically painful while I dived for the mute button on the remote.
When I was a kid I remember needing to be in the room watching the TV to hear the audio for the cartoon clearly. If there was a commercial on I could be in the bathroom and still hear it.
As for expensive equipment - I remember TVs from back in the '90s that boasted automatic commercial detection and volume control. I had a set of cassette player that would detect the rise in volume and chop it down(presumably to save my hearing) - only problem was that my headphones were quieter per watt than they assumed, so the level was uselessly quiet. The tech shouldn't be that expensive.
Just require the average level of programs and ads to be measured, and adjust the ad to match - quiet program, quiet ad. loud program, loud ad.
Then consumers respond with things like firefox and flashblock.
And yes, I do get irked by these sites, especially at work when I'm checking out ONE news article at a random regional paper's site from a wider news link.
Seems to me that if anyone is still paying to watch tv with loud commercials, it's because it's worth it to them.
Agreed. Me, I don't watch live TV anymore because I value my time higher than the $20 or so for netflix vs the inconvience of live TV - of which commercials vie with not being able to pause or watch on my schedule. Plus, many of the shows I like are only on cable - but netflix is a LOT cheaper than the $100/month and needing a DVR that cable would require.
I understand that HULU has more recent TV shows, but because of the ads and the 'until recently' limited back catalog(which you have to pay a fee to get, and just like cable, still get ads), I'm sticking with netflix. Haven't exhausted my queue yet, so it's not a big deal.
Adam Smith WAS NOT a libertarian. Do not try to rewrite history to make him one.
I agree with this, though I'll note that I support what you mentioned despite calling myself a (moderate) libertarian.
My belief is that once you're no longer supporting the government granting limited copyrights, patents, building core roads and infrastructure, much less not enforcing contract law, you're an anarchist, not a libertarian. I can see a libertarian supporting more privately built roads, certainly we're not against companies providing infrastructure(such as power, cable, internet, water, etc...), but the government NOT enforcing contracts? That's one of their core duties!
4k homes is actually a pretty good sample size; increasing it to 40k isn't going to give you 10X better results, especially if they're selecting the 4k properly.
For example, in the presidential election - 1.5k people equates to a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5%.
The 4k homes? Around a 1.5% margin of error at a 95% confidence level. 40k homes would get you a.5% margin at that 95% confidence level.
Still, you might be right - consider digital cable, with the 'average' home getting over a hundred channels. While a 1.5% error rate is fine for somebody getting around a dozen channels, 1.5% is probably too coarse a measurement to even detect some of the least popular non-pay per view channels, as in the viewership is less than the margin of error.
Then again, you're not really looking at 4k homes out of 105M, you're looking at, daily, 192k 'viewing slots', out of 2.5B possible. That would get you down to even more accurate results, when you figure in the log aspect.
I know I've proposed something similiar, though I certainly didn't get as specific. 2 meters sounds a bit long for 'tubes', but I suppose if the tunnels are a meter in diameter they'd be about proportional to the old pneumatic systems.
Of course, I also proposed to dual-purpose PRT systems for this - the idea being that package delivery companies could design vehicles to make deliveries, saving the expense of a driver, oversized vehicles, even the need for as many transfer stations. Instead you have smaller local stations that you release cars from as soon as they're full or a certain delay is reached. Eliminate a couple unpack/sort/pack cycles and you can get ground to be nearly as fast as air.
And before anybody screams about how air is more profitable - well, it's also more expensive. Saving them a sorting cycle could save them a couple thousand a day, per team per facility. Not needing drivers? There's mid hundreds to low thousands per day.
In which case I'd charge the scrap dealer full replacement value. The Mexicans too. Heck, remember the old 'threefold rule'? Make it 150% each.
The scrap dealer will either go out of business or start taking measures against accepting stolen goods. Or at least keep the stuff long enough to be recovered(in which case I wouldn't charge them the 150%, especially if they can provide documentation as to who tehy bought it from).
I agree with you - it's basic risk management - if threat chance times damage if successful is less than the cost to prevent it, then you don't do whatever.
In this case I place the risk very low(passangers have been stopping them), the damage fairly low, the controls both not particularly effective and extremely costly.
So no, you can't really take a charter flight without being screened, although for now you could fly in a private jet, if you can afford the cost (you probably can't, unless your last name is Pelosi, Clinton or Bush).
I remember this. It's also quite funny to see them implimenting said rules for charters on military flights - such as trying to make sure 200 marines with their firearms with them don't carry on a knife on board. And this is for flights going from military airport to military airport.
Slashdot Mirror
As we have seen overt the last 20 years, the capabilities of digital creation/recreation of completely digital characters that are very close to real in all aspects except physical are coming.
I remember reading an article where they've developed technology to create 'virtual works' of great composers. They went from creating a digital 'fingerprint' for their music style, to creating music that would fit that fingerprint. Turns out the great composers followed certain mathematical formulas, or at least formulas could be created to track their music.
As such, voice and mannerisms is getting more and more doable. Though I do think you'll only see the 'greats', both for the effort involved and and amount of material needed to 'play' them. The more versitile actors will be tougher. Reeves is easy, it's just easier to hire him right now. Going by internet sources - Johnny Depp and Gary Oldman are versitile, able to fit themselves to the character more than fitting the character to them.
John Wayne is probably near the top to be computerized - huge source of material to work from, though he's highly typecasted - western followed by military. I think this can make things easier, fewer variables to control, but it would also make it harder to put him into a non-western/WWII/Korean War role. You're also not seeing as many of these movies today either. 'Westerns' are down to one every couple of years, and most war movies are more modern now - Iraq or Afghanistan.
Pretty much this. 99% of all music, movies, and TV shows are, basically, somewhere between 'decent' and 'crap'. But when you're releasing 1-2 movies a week, you're going to get 2 'greats' on average per year.
Even then, while I fondly remember movies such as Short Circuit, Flight of the Navigator, etc... While they're still good, they seem a bit dated to me today. ID4 is showing it's age.
Still, I'm much more a 'new' movie watcher than a rewatcher. I like the netflix service because I can easily get movies and shows I haven't watched before. I'll go more than a year between urges to view my personal favorite classics. So it doesn't make much sense for me to buy.
You want wierd? My dad is right handed, uses his mouse in his left hand. Standard config, just on the opposite side fo the keyboard.
Trick is that he's an accountant. Easy access to the numberpad is more important to him than any extra control of the mouse.
I'll echo corbettw here. They're either misinformed, not libertarians, or got a really weird philosophy that doesn't fit into 'standard' libertarian views.
I'm a libertarian and I have no problems with what the feds are doing. As stated, it's federal jurisdiction, ergo federal involvment is the proper level. He WAS threatening people and committing fraud, both crimes with victims, which SHOULD remain crimes. He should get hit hard for what he's done.
It depends. Some hard core libertarians believe there is no such thing as fraud. If you've been "defrauded" it just means you haven't done your research and haven't made good choices. You could have gone out and found out more about this transaction or this seller, etc if you really cared to avoid fraud.
That's a pretty 'hard-core' libertarian then. I generally call myself a moderate. There's a difference between somebody who wins a $200 auction for an Ipod Box(that clearly says 'empty box') and somebody who wins a $200 auction for an Ipod and gets an empty box. One has been defrauded, one is just stupid.
At least the current situation where in general parties are expected to be honest about the information they disclose and to disclose enough in certain transactions that it reduces the likelihood that parties will attempt to defraud others. If there were no legal teeth to enforce those provisions I can only imagine fraud would increase.
This isn't the sort of situation I want to change. I want people to be free to write pretty much whatever contracts they want to, but I also want all parties to be *INFORMED*.
Deliberately misleading, outright lying, misrepresenting, are all things that make a contract one-sided(both parties should benefit). They should be treated harshly.
Now on the other hand there would indeed be less fraud if people held more of the attitude that it was up to them to do their homework to make sure they weren't getting scammed. Those that do don't get scammed much.
True.
We just can't dish out punishments that are disproportionate to a crime.
You know, I hear this arguement alot?
That's the thing about self defense. I'm not being a vigilante when I shoot somebody who's invaded my home, I'm defending myself, it's not about justice or punishment.
That's for if the person survives and is charged, THEN the justice system takes over and may pass sentence and prescribe punishment.
In the home or the alley, it's not punishment; it's defense, even if it kills the attacker. It's just that the same shots with the best chances of stopping an attacker is the best shots at killing.
Indeed, you'd probably find more libertarians who'd support the right of the stalked to shoot said stalker. Especially when he's threatened them.
Indeed, fraud is very much NOT on the list of things that libertarians want to legalize.
Hmm.. Is it, really?
For the game console, I believe that cellular chips are on the order of $40 each, bought in massive quantities.
For the phone, a d-pad might run $5, but then you also have to redesign the phone to take the input, be handleable while using it, etc...
for the game console, you just make a driver/application to make calls. For the phone, well, you might have to develop a structure to handle the games using it.
In the end, I'm going to say that I think the costs would be about even. Consider that cheap cell phones are a LOT cheaper than a DS or PSP.
Given an android with a better game market, d-pad and such, bigger form factor, antenna, and battery, I think you'd have an easy sale.
The smart phone stays in your pocket, and when you need those peripherals, you'll just sit down next to them.
Given the battery life of my phone, I'd be tossing it into a docking/charging station as long as I'm at it.
My monthly internet and phone costs are amazingly similar, actually. Wtihin $10. $70 for cell phone, $70 for home phone/internet
I'd be more willing to buy unsubsidized phones if the phone companies were willing to give me unsubsidized connection plans.
One thing to remember is that just because the low end of one market overlaps the high end of another, doesn't mean that you're going to get all that many people who buy cheap for one and expensive for the other.
Not many are going to buy a $30k Motorcycle and a $16k econobox car.
Of course, my newest phone was nearly $200(subsidized), my last computer was ~$1000, my last laptop $700.
I don't go with cheap computer equipment; but my computers generally last 6 years(3 mainline, 3 as a server/backup/other). I'm seriously considering a tablet or netbook for my next portable computer; the screen for my phone just isn't big enough for everything.
What about longevity, besides just present installed base? Right now most smart phones are being sold with a 2 year contract; I'm willing to bet that most don't make it lng past that. Most computers probably last 3-5 years. For every geek that buys another computer every year, you probably have at least one apple-fan who upgrades his I-phone whenever a new one comes out, whether it's a year old or just a month.
So sales would have to be ~50% higher for smartphones to merely equal computers, over time.
an INTEL analyst who was demoted for assault and scheduled for an early discharge should have had his SIPRNET access terminated.
Word. USAF he'd have had a hard time keeping his nipr(unclassified) access, much less sipr.
Anyone with a web browser and the ability to run some javascript can do it.
Question: Does this ability require access to the internet? Because classified networks, on average, don't. The standard user also don't have the ability to install programs.
It becomes one of not so much preventing all leaks, but restricting them to a dozen documents, not 30k or so.
I'm going to have to be careful here.
I think they're going to go towards thin-clients. Which means that you won't be directly putting your leak into 'encoded' format for taking out of the workcenter, because even if you have a printer(and those are going away in a lot of places), you won't have the software to do the encoding. Plus, cell phones are already forbidden around classified workstations.
Basically, the 'new' security model is going to end up that to 'leak' documentation you're either going to have to hand write it or sneak in an active digital device like a camera, and even then be restricted to taking pictures one screen at a time. In an area where you're subject to random searches and aren't supposed to have any personal electronics anyways.
as they seem to have no sense of their own history.
And word use changes. Getting nitpicky like what you say would only confuse the message. I try to use words as they're commonly used. The fact remains that I've met 'libertarians' who were closer to anarchists or corporates.
Today, Anarchists are those that want no government. Libertarians are more about limited government.
You may find some branch of anarchism that fits your personal philosophy better than libertarianism does.
Please, I'm too into hierarchy to be an anarchist.
The main reason I'm libertarian is that I disagree with both the democrats and republicans too much. I'm mostly fiscally conservative(Balance the budget, stop wasteful spending!), socially liberal(legalize drugs, prostitution, gay marriage, let people get on with life).
It seems very inadequate that a 19-home sample could be statistically relevant.
It's not a 19 home sample per market because Nielsen measures viewers of a show/network, not a channel. If the channel wants better local information it can pay for the sample itself. We're looking at popularity level for the POTUS, not his popularity in podunk, USA.
There's not a lot of television stations out there today that aren't a part of a national network.
Now, you have a point abouth the suburban/rural homes, if that's true. You also have a point about the granularity, but I don't think that would make all that much difference to the big companies running national ads.
This is measure of relative change which is kinda odd to enforce.
Well, look at it this way - you play the regular program at a lower level than you absolutely have to. Great, good sound range and all that, right? Well - people respond and 'levelize' their own TV by turning up the volume.
Then the commercial comes on and they turn it to the max. Before I shut my TV down, I was getting moments where the commercial was physically painful while I dived for the mute button on the remote.
When I was a kid I remember needing to be in the room watching the TV to hear the audio for the cartoon clearly. If there was a commercial on I could be in the bathroom and still hear it.
As for expensive equipment - I remember TVs from back in the '90s that boasted automatic commercial detection and volume control. I had a set of cassette player that would detect the rise in volume and chop it down(presumably to save my hearing) - only problem was that my headphones were quieter per watt than they assumed, so the level was uselessly quiet. The tech shouldn't be that expensive.
Just require the average level of programs and ads to be measured, and adjust the ad to match - quiet program, quiet ad. loud program, loud ad.
Then consumers respond with things like firefox and flashblock.
And yes, I do get irked by these sites, especially at work when I'm checking out ONE news article at a random regional paper's site from a wider news link.
Seems to me that if anyone is still paying to watch tv with loud commercials, it's because it's worth it to them.
Agreed. Me, I don't watch live TV anymore because I value my time higher than the $20 or so for netflix vs the inconvience of live TV - of which commercials vie with not being able to pause or watch on my schedule. Plus, many of the shows I like are only on cable - but netflix is a LOT cheaper than the $100/month and needing a DVR that cable would require.
I understand that HULU has more recent TV shows, but because of the ads and the 'until recently' limited back catalog(which you have to pay a fee to get, and just like cable, still get ads), I'm sticking with netflix. Haven't exhausted my queue yet, so it's not a big deal.
Adam Smith WAS NOT a libertarian. Do not try to rewrite history to make him one.
I agree with this, though I'll note that I support what you mentioned despite calling myself a (moderate) libertarian.
My belief is that once you're no longer supporting the government granting limited copyrights, patents, building core roads and infrastructure, much less not enforcing contract law, you're an anarchist, not a libertarian. I can see a libertarian supporting more privately built roads, certainly we're not against companies providing infrastructure(such as power, cable, internet, water, etc...), but the government NOT enforcing contracts? That's one of their core duties!
4k homes is actually a pretty good sample size; increasing it to 40k isn't going to give you 10X better results, especially if they're selecting the 4k properly.
For example, in the presidential election - 1.5k people equates to a margin of error of plus or minus 2.5%.
The 4k homes? Around a 1.5% margin of error at a 95% confidence level. 40k homes would get you a .5% margin at that 95% confidence level.
Still, you might be right - consider digital cable, with the 'average' home getting over a hundred channels. While a 1.5% error rate is fine for somebody getting around a dozen channels, 1.5% is probably too coarse a measurement to even detect some of the least popular non-pay per view channels, as in the viewership is less than the margin of error.
Then again, you're not really looking at 4k homes out of 105M, you're looking at, daily, 192k 'viewing slots', out of 2.5B possible. That would get you down to even more accurate results, when you figure in the log aspect.
I know I've proposed something similiar, though I certainly didn't get as specific. 2 meters sounds a bit long for 'tubes', but I suppose if the tunnels are a meter in diameter they'd be about proportional to the old pneumatic systems.
Of course, I also proposed to dual-purpose PRT systems for this - the idea being that package delivery companies could design vehicles to make deliveries, saving the expense of a driver, oversized vehicles, even the need for as many transfer stations. Instead you have smaller local stations that you release cars from as soon as they're full or a certain delay is reached. Eliminate a couple unpack/sort/pack cycles and you can get ground to be nearly as fast as air.
And before anybody screams about how air is more profitable - well, it's also more expensive. Saving them a sorting cycle could save them a couple thousand a day, per team per facility. Not needing drivers? There's mid hundreds to low thousands per day.
In which case I'd charge the scrap dealer full replacement value. The Mexicans too. Heck, remember the old 'threefold rule'? Make it 150% each.
The scrap dealer will either go out of business or start taking measures against accepting stolen goods. Or at least keep the stuff long enough to be recovered(in which case I wouldn't charge them the 150%, especially if they can provide documentation as to who tehy bought it from).
I agree with you - it's basic risk management - if threat chance times damage if successful is less than the cost to prevent it, then you don't do whatever.
In this case I place the risk very low(passangers have been stopping them), the damage fairly low, the controls both not particularly effective and extremely costly.
So no, you can't really take a charter flight without being screened, although for now you could fly in a private jet, if you can afford the cost (you probably can't, unless your last name is Pelosi, Clinton or Bush).
I remember this. It's also quite funny to see them implimenting said rules for charters on military flights - such as trying to make sure 200 marines with their firearms with them don't carry on a knife on board. And this is for flights going from military airport to military airport.
I've got an iPod Nano that is a couple years old and it is the last Apple product I will ever buy.
Welcome to the club; I've been informally boycotting them since the mess that is/was quicktime pissed me off.
I think I blew my stack way too much - It's been around a decade now!