and it will no longer be profitable to do stupid crap like airing wrestling on the Sci-Fi channel just to bring in more ad revenue.
Your "stupid crap" is another man's night at the opera. What that says about those people is moot; they're out there demanding it, so why shouldn't someone shovel it?
I even heard rumours that some people will pay to watch wrestling!
Satellites? Please. Everyone knows this has been caused by the steady decline in pirate activity over the last two centuries, which has even been enough to more than compensate for the lack of displacement caused by their boats!
What's expensive, really, about Hawking's set-up? I'm sure I could write a (possibly simplified) version of his word selection software in an afternoon and connect it to a switch.
What should be illegal is being impaired while driving.
Which is what you're doing if you're holding a phone in one hand and looking at it instead of the road.
On the other hand, by outlawing it, cops can accuse you of texting any time they see you with a phone in your hand
They don't need to in the UK - just holding the phone is enough (rightly so in my opinion).
The law ought to be: if you are driving safely, fine.
Good luck defining "driving safely". Isn't it for that very reason that we have driving laws in the first place? If you could define it, we wouldn't need speed limits, signals, laws against using a mobile phone...
Stuart Geiger has demonstrated that it is possible to transmit simple ping requests across two computers using people playing xylophones.
Was there ever any doubt that this could be done? It's the same as that carrier pigeon IP thing - it was always going to work. Has it taught us anything new?
You can pick who is on your football team, but you can't pick who is in your society.
Nice soundbite, but what does it have to do with anything? Society has evolved to have this proportion of lefties and righties because it strikes a successful balance. So no, you can't pick who's in your society, but you don't have to because evolution has already selected for a 90/10 balance. Survival of the fittest football team in one case, survival of the fittest tribe in the other.
And cooperation stems from empathy, not handedness.
Is anyone suggesting cooperation stems from handedness? If anything, the summary suggests the opposite.
Still, kudos for summarising your post in its title.
Okay, I think I see where we're crossing wires. When I said smoothness I meant temporal resolution - interlacing won't do anything to help that. I see how it would reduce flicker on a CRT but 30fps is still "jerky" (lacking in temporal resolution) no matter how you display the frames - "jerky" and "flickery" being two different things, to my mind.
What the eye is being made to believe is that it is seeing a frame rate of 60 when in fact that's field rate and the frame rate is half that. And that two fields sent in sequence form a single frame [and don't remain as fields].
But the eye is seeing a picture rate (to be unambiguous) of 60, if you're talking about video (sports, news, etc).
It still sounds like you're suggesting that, from 30fps-based (i.e. "filmy" material), displaying those two halves of the same moment in time one after the other somehow improves the apparent smoothness, but it won't.
Those last two are equivalent. They might look slightly different on interlaced/progressive CRT screens, but one will not look smoother than the other.
0% shutter almost looks like (ultra smooth) stop motion animation, or as you may have seen at some sporting events, like when they use a high-speed camera as a normal camera for a some shots. You can see this at Wimbledon sometimes. Another analogy would be being under bad strobe lighting.
To those who apparently have their sarcasm-o-meters set too low, I was being serious. I do think that, beyond the nice thing he's doing for the troops (especially given the MPAA's apparent policy of making it as difficult as possible for them to get some entertainment out there), his inadvertent placing of the MPAA in a spiky corner is a beautiful thing.
I just think calling his action the most beautiful thing that's ever been heard of smacks of hyperbole (or a need to look around a little more).
There's a reason for this: the camera operator is looking through the same lens that the film is being exposed through, and... they need to be able to see what's going on. Hence the shutter is typically set to open for half the time.
I thought it was more because the shutter has to close to give the film time to wind to the next frame.
Video cameras typically record 1/50th of a second per field when they're shooting 25fps interlaced video. Which is almost exactly the same.
I've always found 1/100s shutter speed to look a lot more realistic when shooting 25fps interlaced video, or even generating interlaced moving graphics.
It's simply that frame rates have become part of the language of the visual arts. That's why (from the 90s, until HD came along) a lot of TV drama was shot cheaply on video at 50/60fps and post processed to 25/24fps - because we've come to expect that those low frame rates mean a movie with movie production values.
It's like the pink-for-girls, blue-for-boys thing - it seems so ingrained in Western culture now, but 50 years ago it was the other way around.
Slashdot Mirror
and it will no longer be profitable to do stupid crap like airing wrestling on the Sci-Fi channel just to bring in more ad revenue.
Your "stupid crap" is another man's night at the opera. What that says about those people is moot; they're out there demanding it, so why shouldn't someone shovel it?
I even heard rumours that some people will pay to watch wrestling!
Those are promotions. The BBC aren't selling anything - they want the viewers in order to justify the licence fee, not to increase the take.
Satellites? Please. Everyone knows this has been caused by the steady decline in pirate activity over the last two centuries, which has even been enough to more than compensate for the lack of displacement caused by their boats!
What's expensive, really, about Hawking's set-up? I'm sure I could write a (possibly simplified) version of his word selection software in an afternoon and connect it to a switch.
What should be illegal is being impaired while driving.
Which is what you're doing if you're holding a phone in one hand and looking at it instead of the road.
On the other hand, by outlawing it, cops can accuse you of texting any time they see you with a phone in your hand
They don't need to in the UK - just holding the phone is enough (rightly so in my opinion).
The law ought to be: if you are driving safely, fine.
Good luck defining "driving safely". Isn't it for that very reason that we have driving laws in the first place? If you could define it, we wouldn't need speed limits, signals, laws against using a mobile phone...
they could care less how often you post.
So they do care a bit? But not much?
I was having a dig at ThePeices for nitpicking the AC's post.
Oh-ho-ho! Is funny because grandparent made inconsequential grammatical error when English is probably not his first language!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NdQQjfDUBLY
the London Streets Traffic Control Center followed each vehicle using CCTV
"Each vehicle" in this case refers to the vehicles carrying the IOC members, not just "each vehicle" that happened to on the road at the time.
Stuart Geiger has demonstrated that it is possible to transmit simple ping requests across two computers using people playing xylophones.
Was there ever any doubt that this could be done? It's the same as that carrier pigeon IP thing - it was always going to work. Has it taught us anything new?
There are video ads on YouTube now?
I think it was the submitter's slightly misjudged (considering the audience) attempt at a metaphor.
Since when has "iPhone" become the generic term for a mobile phone?
Oh, wait, my mistake. It's just another badly thought-out Slashdot headline!
Maybe not on a 13" XPS, but my 15" 1920x1080 Latitude does me just fine.
You take that back, you scruffy-lookin' nerfherder!
There's no reason to have such an inflammatory article.
You've given the "reason" right there.
I think you'll find it's "The Pedants' Corporation."
Electric Airplane Ready For Production
Yay!
The four-passenger carbon fiber aircraft isn't really an electric plane
Aw.
You can pick who is on your football team, but you can't pick who is in your society.
Nice soundbite, but what does it have to do with anything? Society has evolved to have this proportion of lefties and righties because it strikes a successful balance. So no, you can't pick who's in your society, but you don't have to because evolution has already selected for a 90/10 balance. Survival of the fittest football team in one case, survival of the fittest tribe in the other.
And cooperation stems from empathy, not handedness.
Is anyone suggesting cooperation stems from handedness? If anything, the summary suggests the opposite.
Still, kudos for summarising your post in its title.
Okay, I think I see where we're crossing wires. When I said smoothness I meant temporal resolution - interlacing won't do anything to help that. I see how it would reduce flicker on a CRT but 30fps is still "jerky" (lacking in temporal resolution) no matter how you display the frames - "jerky" and "flickery" being two different things, to my mind.
What the eye is being made to believe is that it is seeing a frame rate of 60 when in fact that's field rate and the frame rate is half that. And that two fields sent in sequence form a single frame [and don't remain as fields].
But the eye is seeing a picture rate (to be unambiguous) of 60, if you're talking about video (sports, news, etc).
It still sounds like you're suggesting that, from 30fps-based (i.e. "filmy" material), displaying those two halves of the same moment in time one after the other somehow improves the apparent smoothness, but it won't.
How about this:
(Fictional) fully-progressive 60fps source: ABCDEF (1/10th of a second)
Smooth interlaced video: [A1/B2][C1/D2][E1/F2]
Interlaced film-rate video: [A1/A2][C1/C2][E1/E2]
Progressive film-rate video: [A][C][E]
Those last two are equivalent. They might look slightly different on interlaced/progressive CRT screens, but one will not look smoother than the other.
0% shutter almost looks like (ultra smooth) stop motion animation, or as you may have seen at some sporting events, like when they use a high-speed camera as a normal camera for a some shots. You can see this at Wimbledon sometimes. Another analogy would be being under bad strobe lighting.
To those who apparently have their sarcasm-o-meters set too low, I was being serious. I do think that, beyond the nice thing he's doing for the troops (especially given the MPAA's apparent policy of making it as difficult as possible for them to get some entertainment out there), his inadvertent placing of the MPAA in a spiky corner is a beautiful thing.
I just think calling his action the most beautiful thing that's ever been heard of smacks of hyperbole (or a need to look around a little more).
There's a reason for this: the camera operator is looking through the same lens that the film is being exposed through, and... they need to be able to see what's going on. Hence the shutter is typically set to open for half the time.
I thought it was more because the shutter has to close to give the film time to wind to the next frame.
Video cameras typically record 1/50th of a second per field when they're shooting 25fps interlaced video. Which is almost exactly the same.
I've always found 1/100s shutter speed to look a lot more realistic when shooting 25fps interlaced video, or even generating interlaced moving graphics.
It's simply that frame rates have become part of the language of the visual arts. That's why (from the 90s, until HD came along) a lot of TV drama was shot cheaply on video at 50/60fps and post processed to 25/24fps - because we've come to expect that those low frame rates mean a movie with movie production values.
It's like the pink-for-girls, blue-for-boys thing - it seems so ingrained in Western culture now, but 50 years ago it was the other way around.