I cannot help but feel that inviting the possibility of retribution over a matter of intellectual property from a Navy SEALS unit, however remote, should be cause for caution.
I’m also somewhat surprised that a global firm with such an obsession for it’s public image as Disney would do something as unilaterally endorsing as promoting a single nation’s military. Surely some marketer in their ranks is concerned this will affect sales of Mickey Mouse in Saudi Arabia?!
I strongly suspect that within the temporal horizon Walmart considers, the cost of maintaining minimal authentication severs is absolutely minimal.
They have the hardware already (obviously), idem for the maintenance contracts, their only variable cost is bandwidth. At the very least, this will stop rising as nobody will be authorising new music.
I expect their authentication server's performance will gradually degrade as they cease spending money on maintenance and upgrades, but it will remain basically usable - avoiding them the lawsuits.
This, basically, accounts for the total of their NPV.
I'm an Apple pundit, but I jump at the opportunity to vent my hatred of the MacBookAir.
You're right: it's a disaster waiting to happen. A friend of mine has one and wrecked the USB port (the manner of failure being essentially irrelevant). Once the port died, the only way of getting information in or out of the machine was the wireless network interface. Digicams and DVDs became off-limits, as did 3G cellphone coverage. In short, it became a stylish paperweight.
Suddenly, my friend understood the concept of "robustness under single failure".
I expect it's less of an AI and more of a simple collection of linear statistical models (linear regressions and general linear models) using parameters gleaned from the performance of past films.
Unless yours was a reference to the awful film A.I.
The Canon EOS-1RS (circa 1997) or thereabouts could also pull this trick. I had one. As you mention, the amount of light reaching the film was drastically reduced - a penalty of about 4 stops, sometimes more, sometimes less. That doesn't really apply in this case though, because from what I understand this camera isn't doing it optically, it's using a digital system instead.
In the case of this Sony R1 that appears to use a digital viewfinder (EVF), you'll be drawing massive amounts of power to keep the sensor and the viewfinder running simultaneously. Power drain on the batteries will be enormous, greatly reducing the number of photographs (and even composing time!) available to the photographer.
As I said previously, this is definitely not a camera for any kind of serious photographer: neither the seasoned amateur nor the professional can consider this to be a worthwhile investment.
P.S. Having re-read the review, I now realise this camera can accommodate either MemoryStickPro or industry-standard CompactFlash (CF) cards. I stand corrected.
This camera cannot be a true SLR. If it were a true SLR, you would not be able to have a live preview on the LCD. This because when composing a shot through the viewfinder, the internal mirror is in a depressed condition that prevents light from reaching the film/sensor, which is covered by a shutter anyway.
As a simple exercise of deductive logic, if you can see a live preview on the LCD, it means that light is being allowed to reach the CCD/CMOS sensor. This in turn means that there is no shutter or mirror. This means that though it may be behaving somewhat like an SLR, it is not an SLR. That means it's essentially a Compact with some kind of extra equipment in a cool-looking form-factor.
In any case, this sounds like another marketing-gimmick product from Sony. I'm sure it's only compatible with MemoryStick. Lenses are not interchangeable and the cropping factor is probably nonstandard. It's clearly intended for clueless consumers.
The obvious problem I see is that if you switch them off, they keep on glowing. Clearly these are not useful except in a handful of very specific situations.
My point is that piracy disrupts the whole price-structure of the software industry: instead of buying a cheap alternative, you pirate an expensive package for free. It's the small software companies that lose out.
If Joe User downloads stuff that he would not buy if his life depended on it, he's not ripping anyone off.
I am fed up of these overly simplistic economic analyses that totally miss the point.
Consider video-editing software: You have (e.g.) Movie Maker that is available free with Windows. Then you have a $100 package called Super Movie Maker produced by Company A Ltd. Finally you have a professional $999 package called Ultra Movie Maker made by Company B Inc.
Lets say that Movie Maker ($0) doesn't meet your needs but that you can't afford $999. What would you do? You could go and buy the $100 Super Movie Maker and contribute $100 to Company A. Alternatively, you could download Ultra Movie Maker free from some Warez site.
So, you see, by making Ultra Movie Maker available for free, the warez site hasn't cost Company B any revenue (because you couldn't afford to spend $999) but it has cost Company A $100 in revenue. So just because "Joe User" couldn't afford the program he downloads for free doesn't mean this doesn't cost anybody any money. It destroys the clientele of the smaller firms.
Am I against DRM? Yeah, sure I am. But at least lets get our facts straight because there is no point bullshitting each other.
I'm British but I live and work in China. Many websites are unreachable because of the censorship here (e.g.: news.bbc.co.uk).
Tor lets me surf those websites and find out what is going on in the world, and find out the things the PRC government doesn't want its citizens knowing about.
So pretty much, all you need is a heafty pipe and a slight dose of insanity?
You need a hefty pipe that has been welded shut on one end and a hefty dose of insanity. Barrel-testing is an intricate form of engineering and if that thing were to fragment the shrapnel would sever your torso as if it were paper.
Slashdot Mirror
I cannot help but feel that inviting the possibility of retribution over a matter of intellectual property from a Navy SEALS unit, however remote, should be cause for caution.
I’m also somewhat surprised that a global firm with such an obsession for it’s public image as Disney would do something as unilaterally endorsing as promoting a single nation’s military. Surely some marketer in their ranks is concerned this will affect sales of Mickey Mouse in Saudi Arabia?!
Behold, we have a Luser Attitude Re-adjustment Tool.
Holding-it-wrong is the perfect solution to the problem.
*abstraction*, not *abstruction*
I strongly suspect that within the temporal horizon Walmart considers, the cost of maintaining minimal authentication severs is absolutely minimal.
They have the hardware already (obviously), idem for the maintenance contracts, their only variable cost is bandwidth. At the very least, this will stop rising as nobody will be authorising new music.
I expect their authentication server's performance will gradually degrade as they cease spending money on maintenance and upgrades, but it will remain basically usable - avoiding them the lawsuits.
This, basically, accounts for the total of their NPV.
I'm an Apple pundit, but I jump at the opportunity to vent my hatred of the MacBookAir.
You're right: it's a disaster waiting to happen. A friend of mine has one and wrecked the USB port (the manner of failure being essentially irrelevant). Once the port died, the only way of getting information in or out of the machine was the wireless network interface. Digicams and DVDs became off-limits, as did 3G cellphone coverage. In short, it became a stylish paperweight.
Suddenly, my friend understood the concept of "robustness under single failure".
I expect it's less of an AI and more of a simple collection of linear statistical models (linear regressions and general linear models) using parameters gleaned from the performance of past films.
Unless yours was a reference to the awful film A.I.
The Canon EOS-1RS (circa 1997) or thereabouts could also pull this trick. I had one. As you mention, the amount of light reaching the film was drastically reduced - a penalty of about 4 stops, sometimes more, sometimes less. That doesn't really apply in this case though, because from what I understand this camera isn't doing it optically, it's using a digital system instead.
In the case of this Sony R1 that appears to use a digital viewfinder (EVF), you'll be drawing massive amounts of power to keep the sensor and the viewfinder running simultaneously. Power drain on the batteries will be enormous, greatly reducing the number of photographs (and even composing time!) available to the photographer.
As I said previously, this is definitely not a camera for any kind of serious photographer: neither the seasoned amateur nor the professional can consider this to be a worthwhile investment.
P.S. Having re-read the review, I now realise this camera can accommodate either MemoryStickPro or industry-standard CompactFlash (CF) cards. I stand corrected.
This camera cannot be a true SLR. If it were a true SLR, you would not be able to have a live preview on the LCD. This because when composing a shot through the viewfinder, the internal mirror is in a depressed condition that prevents light from reaching the film/sensor, which is covered by a shutter anyway.
As a simple exercise of deductive logic, if you can see a live preview on the LCD, it means that light is being allowed to reach the CCD/CMOS sensor. This in turn means that there is no shutter or mirror. This means that though it may be behaving somewhat like an SLR, it is not an SLR. That means it's essentially a Compact with some kind of extra equipment in a cool-looking form-factor.
In any case, this sounds like another marketing-gimmick product from Sony. I'm sure it's only compatible with MemoryStick. Lenses are not interchangeable and the cropping factor is probably nonstandard. It's clearly intended for clueless consumers.
Must be because of all that herb you were smoking.
Isn't a grenade a bomb? Isn't a land-mine a bomb? Doesn't the Army have grenades and mines?
An Arthur C. Clarke reference in Latin. There's a first time for everything. My compliments to you.
Your .sig loosely translates as "Recognised hidden equipment, sufficient not superior." Am I missing something? "Found unknown device?"
It was Wolfgang Pauli: "This isn't right, this isn't even wrong."
a ng_pauli.html
Reference: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/authors/w/wolfg
In actual fact, you're deceived. That isn't a battery you have there. It is a donut of constricted fusion plasma inside a tokamak.
What I am saying is that these are useless in home environments, for example, where you'd want to switch the bedroom lights off before sleeping.
And before you start telling people to shoot themselves, learn to formulate your sentences properly, ok?
The obvious problem I see is that if you switch them off, they keep on glowing. Clearly these are not useful except in a handful of very specific situations.
My point is that piracy disrupts the whole price-structure of the software industry: instead of buying a cheap alternative, you pirate an expensive package for free. It's the small software companies that lose out.
I am fed up of these overly simplistic economic analyses that totally miss the point.
Consider video-editing software: You have (e.g.) Movie Maker that is available free with Windows. Then you have a $100 package called Super Movie Maker produced by Company A Ltd. Finally you have a professional $999 package called Ultra Movie Maker made by Company B Inc.
Lets say that Movie Maker ($0) doesn't meet your needs but that you can't afford $999. What would you do? You could go and buy the $100 Super Movie Maker and contribute $100 to Company A. Alternatively, you could download Ultra Movie Maker free from some Warez site.
So, you see, by making Ultra Movie Maker available for free, the warez site hasn't cost Company B any revenue (because you couldn't afford to spend $999) but it has cost Company A $100 in revenue. So just because "Joe User" couldn't afford the program he downloads for free doesn't mean this doesn't cost anybody any money. It destroys the clientele of the smaller firms.
Am I against DRM? Yeah, sure I am. But at least lets get our facts straight because there is no point bullshitting each other.
I'm British but I live and work in China. Many websites are unreachable because of the censorship here (e.g.: news.bbc.co.uk).
Tor lets me surf those websites and find out what is going on in the world, and find out the things the PRC government doesn't want its citizens knowing about.
In short, it is my window on the world.
Ghostbusters. Heh.
First they spoil the Trilogy with the awful Prequels, and now they're considering a lurid TV series and animated cartoons?!
They've ruined the Star Wars of my youth. Why can't they just leave well alone?
I wholeheartedly support your brand of grammar nazism. And I'm not afraid to show it.
2. Find Yankee Imperialists.
3. ??
4. Profit!
[Mohammed and Abdul are prowling around for American hostages. Mohammed has a RFID detector, and Abdul has an AK-47.]
"Hey Abdul! I think I've found us a Yankee Imperialist cowering behind that rubble over there!"
You need a hefty pipe that has been welded shut on one end and a hefty dose of insanity. Barrel-testing is an intricate form of engineering and if that thing were to fragment the shrapnel would sever your torso as if it were paper.