360 degree panoramas have been around for 20+ years - this is just a new way of capturing them (and from previously inaccessible locations, such as 20 feet in the air).
You make it sound like you've never seen one - or haven't understood how the ball is being used.
Well, for a start, 24 doesn't go nicely into 60 so if you do have a particular keyframe position that you want to keep precisely, you'll need to work carefully around it.
It may also be that you've specially keyed an object's position (perhaps camera position for a cut to another angle) in two neighbouring frames for a particular effect, but interpolating between those positions for the extra frames just doesn't work. Or you might end up with an intersection of objects which didn't happen on the original frames.
Then you've also got the problem of extending the number of frames at either end of a scene. Suppose you have (for simplicity's sake) three frames in a scene:
ADG
and you want to triple the framerate. No problem, just stick two extra frames in for each existing frame:
AbcDefG...
Ah. Where do you get the two extra frames you need at the end? There's nowhere for the animation to go because (quite possibly) you only keyed right up to frame G originally, and that was the frame you wanted to end the shot on (as a hobbyist editor, one can get pretty picky about that). You could insert frames at the beginning of the scene, but that's the same problem. You could stretch the whole scene out more - here by inserting three frames between AD and DG - but then you'll be altering different scenes by slightly different amounts.
They'll also be less motion blur with a higher framerate, so errors that may have been covered up might become more noticeable.
Not only that, but (I am assured by those with better knowledge of the stories) a lot of the stories were about situations where the three laws weren't sufficient.
Here's what I think about project management skills, and here are a few vaguely coincidentally similar situations in sci-fi movies to make me look nerdcool
if you make migration dependent on asking the "losing" carrier...
That's an entirely speculative "if." If, on the other hand, it can be done entirely by an owner in possession of a private key, then no problem, and nothing to get het up about.
Get SIM definition from new carrier. Encrypt and upload to device via old carrier. Done.
Preventing the need to open up devices to swap a SIM could be easily resolved by using a simple spring-loaded insert/eject slot for SIM cards
That would still need physical access to the device, which is the problem this proposal is actually trying do away with. It might also (speculation on my part here, but doesn't seem unreasonable) run the risk of causing more problems when users brick their phones or SIMs by popping the SIM without turning off the phone.
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to me.
FTFY. There are plenty of use cases where this would be an incredibly useful facility. Just because none of them personally impact on you doesn't mean this is automatically a nefarious conspiracy to (some day, in the future, possibly, but not now) rob you of control over your phone.
Slashdot Mirror
What the hell, +5 Insightful? I was going for funny.
Hah! That would almost be funny - almost - if that was what schizophrenia was. But it's not, so, it's not. Sorry.
You'll always have some yutz in the middle of your photo staring up at the camera with his hands in the air.
While a novel concept,
360 degree panoramas have been around for 20+ years - this is just a new way of capturing them (and from previously inaccessible locations, such as 20 feet in the air).
You make it sound like you've never seen one - or haven't understood how the ball is being used.
Stop being reasonable. This is Slashdot, man!
Some guys just made a car out of Lego.
it could not distinguish between what was on the screen and real life.
That's ridiculous, as I was trying to tell Katie Couric only the other day. Wouldn't let me get a word in edgeways though.
Well, for a start, 24 doesn't go nicely into 60 so if you do have a particular keyframe position that you want to keep precisely, you'll need to work carefully around it.
It may also be that you've specially keyed an object's position (perhaps camera position for a cut to another angle) in two neighbouring frames for a particular effect, but interpolating between those positions for the extra frames just doesn't work. Or you might end up with an intersection of objects which didn't happen on the original frames.
Then you've also got the problem of extending the number of frames at either end of a scene. Suppose you have (for simplicity's sake) three frames in a scene:
ADG
and you want to triple the framerate. No problem, just stick two extra frames in for each existing frame:
AbcDefG...
Ah. Where do you get the two extra frames you need at the end? There's nowhere for the animation to go because (quite possibly) you only keyed right up to frame G originally, and that was the frame you wanted to end the shot on (as a hobbyist editor, one can get pretty picky about that). You could insert frames at the beginning of the scene, but that's the same problem. You could stretch the whole scene out more - here by inserting three frames between AD and DG - but then you'll be altering different scenes by slightly different amounts.
They'll also be less motion blur with a higher framerate, so errors that may have been covered up might become more noticeable.
If our government commits an illegal act, who is able to enforce it?
Dunno. Coastguard?
Not only that, but (I am assured by those with better knowledge of the stories) a lot of the stories were about situations where the three laws weren't sufficient.
What do you need from me?
Just your name, address, favourite pet's name and cup size.
Perspective is such a wonderful thing
Not from where I'm standing.
The desert scenes were filmed on Mars.
I would, but I'm not sure you exist, so there's probably no point.
which claimed as many as fifty prevented attacks
Are you sure they didn't say "up to fifty prevented attacks"? Zero counts!
No, I mean that's what the documentation seems to say.
Where can that be found? The closest thing I've found amounts to little more than a speculative brochure.
The answer is, of course, fuck all.
What the author meant was:
Here's what I think about project management skills, and here are a few vaguely coincidentally similar situations in sci-fi movies to make me look nerdcool
I don't see anything in the article to suggest this would be for the carrier, and not the owner, to control.
Glass half empty much?
Most likely this is just a method to take away one of subscriber's freedoms - to become somebody else's subscriber.
Why do you assume that?
if you make migration dependent on asking the "losing" carrier...
That's an entirely speculative "if." If, on the other hand, it can be done entirely by an owner in possession of a private key, then no problem, and nothing to get het up about.
Get SIM definition from new carrier. Encrypt and upload to device via old carrier. Done.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZfU9olGiiE&t=12m20s
The discussion would have been much shorter and a lot more intelligent if people hadn't felt the need to rage
You might as well make that your sig. Well, maybe not you, based on your current one. Someone though.
It is not intended for use in your phone (most people here seem to have missed that little detail)
How can you expect us to fulfil our need to become apoplectic with nerdrage if you want us to notice things like "details"?
Preventing the need to open up devices to swap a SIM could be easily resolved by using a simple spring-loaded insert/eject slot for SIM cards
That would still need physical access to the device, which is the problem this proposal is actually trying do away with. It might also (speculation on my part here, but doesn't seem unreasonable) run the risk of causing more problems when users brick their phones or SIMs by popping the SIM without turning off the phone.
This is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist to me.
FTFY. There are plenty of use cases where this would be an incredibly useful facility. Just because none of them personally impact on you doesn't mean this is automatically a nefarious conspiracy to (some day, in the future, possibly, but not now) rob you of control over your phone.