I trust an autonomous car to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid accidents or mitigate their damage much more than I trust the general population. I trust a wealthy fuck in an autonomous car more than a trust someone putting on makeup or texting in a regular car.
1. What I am getting at is that all the money that campaigns spend on stuff (commercials, signs, web sites, etc), individual people could just buy directly, bypassing the campaigns. I can make my own signs and hand them out to people, and it doesn't count as money spent by the campaign. This is the loophole that America has. It is why "money is speech" according to the supreme court. Does Canada close this loophole, or do people just not exploit it?
2. ok that makes some sense I guess
3. I am not talking about secertly slipping a politician a 20. I am talking about following the rules, but still effectively donating more than the per person cap.
I don't know how good you Canadians are at corruption, but let me enlighten you on how we do it here.
Scenario A: Donation pooling: I live in California and want to support candidate A. Bob lives in New York and wants to support candidate B. We can both donate $2700 to our candidate. But I get a great idea. What if Bob and I make a deal. I will also donate $2700 to his candidate if he donates $2700 to my candidate. And now multiply that out to every political race and every rich donor, and you have people basically donating hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to help their candidate. They are actually only donating $2700 to each individual candidate, but they are buying more donations from other people with their own donations to their candidates, and vice versa.
Scenario B: My company would really like to donate lots of money to a particular candidate, but they are not allowed to. Only individuals are allowed to donate up to $2700 each to political campaigns. SO my company decides that they will give all their employees a great deal. They will give $5200 to each employee that donates $2700 to the candidate they support. Oh wait that seems a little sketchy. Ok they will donate $2 to a charity of the employees choice for every $1 they donate to the candidate. Now it's for a good cause.
And this is all following the existing rules of $2700 max per person donation. We don't have to do any of that shit now. Now we just anonymously donate as much money as we want to super PACs and we don't need to waste any more time coordinating individual donations.
I would love to see a good digital headphone standard come out
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable.
On second thought if this is the best example you can come up with, I guess I really don't need or want digital headphones.
If you're using headphones (so no surround sound), you have to have good kit, the right kind of audio and good hearing for even 128kbps MP3s to be worse than essentially perfect.
That statement becomes true if you bump that 128 to like 192. 128 sounds like shit. Listen to any tracks with a lot of cymbals or lapping, and it sounds like you are listening underwater.
The best thing to do IMO is encode mp3 at variable bitrate. That way the bitrate can be adjusted to maintain a constant quality level depending on the complexity of the waveform.
1. So during the actual election, what are you not allowed to spend money on? Obviously I guess donating to political campaigns? Are you allowed to buy your own TV commercials promoting or attacking individuals or issues? Are you allowed to buy yard signs and give them out for free? Are you allowed to spend money creating an internet blog critical of certain candidates?
2. If you were not allowed to spend any of your own money, and you weren't getting any public money, how would you even do well in the first election to start getting public money?
3. Even in America before the citizens united supreme court decision, we had caps on individual contributions, and there was plenty of loopholes to get around it. In fact, I would argue that it's actually more transparent now, because you can actually see who is getting money from super pacs and who isn't. Before it was harder to figure out which individual contributions were legitimate and which were part of some scheme, now politicians get the bulk of their dirty money through super pacs because it's easier.
It's easy enough to fix: demand a constitutional amendment requiring that all monies spent in campaigns by and for *specific* political candidates must arise from a limited pool of public money. (This should not run afoul of the First Amendment, since candidates are not 'speech'.) All other monies routed to or spent by candidates or elected officials shall be considered bribes (including their own money).
I am not a big fan of this approach.
1. it is possible to spend money to help a candidate without giving that money to their official campaign. This is a giant loophole. Like if I hate Hillary Clinton, should I be prevented from spending money to spread my views? Or should the money and resources I spend be considered a donation to the Sanders Campaign? or to the Trump campaign?
2. How do we decide who is eligible to receive this public money and who is not? We can't have 50,000 people all receiving public campaign money. In almost every scenario I can imagine, this public campaign fund will be used to exclude people from entering political races. They will be barred from spending their own money, and they will be denied public money.
As bad as money in politics has become, I am still of the opinion that the cure to bad speech is more good speech (not restrictions on "bad" speech). It would be great if we could restrict bad speech, but ultimately it is too easy for these laws to be abused and used to silence legitimate speech. There was a reason the founding fathers wanted to allow *all* speech. It was so that there would be hard to restrict good speech by saying it was bad (i.e. because even bad speech is permitted). As a downside we have also have bad speech. That's one of the costs of a free society.
While I agree with you, the "public" primaries are also there to keep our choices from being completely controlled by back-room deals.
You can't stop back room deals. If candidate A and candidate B of a similar political persuasion agree to a deal to one of the two of them drop out based on a coin flip in a back room, in order to consolidate votes to a single candidate, you can't stop that.
I'd prefer to abolish party primaries and allow more open general election ballot access
We kind of already have that. Anyone can run for president. 3rd parties, independents, etc. And I agree that we should abolish the recognition of political parties by the government. I don't think you can or should stop people from proclaiming that they are a republican or a democrat. I don't even think we can stop parties from proclaiming who their chosen candidate is. If both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders run in the general election, the democratic party has the power to determine who is the legitimate democratic party candidate and who is the usurper on the actual ballot. If it were up to me, I would just present the names of all the candidates as equals. If the party wants to advertise to it's members who the real nominee is, they can do that with their own money.
(although I don't think having 20+ people on the ballot for a single position is necessarily an improvement, so some legitimate signature minimums or something should exist)
I think it would be a vast improvement
Go to a ranked voting system, where you can rank up to 3 candidates, and you rarely would need a run-off.
Why not just rank as many candidates as you want? Why limit it to 3? You can have as many instant runoffs as you want for free. There is no reason to have a separate runoff election if you can completely capture a voters preference on one ballot.
The Repubocrats and Demlicans would never allow that though.
Democracy isn't easy. It's hard to get people to care. And once they care, it's hard to get them to care about the same thing. Also, it's a personal preference, but I prefer "republicrats" and "demoplicans".
They should be able to nominate whoever they want, in whatever method they want, fair or not. The real problem is that they get special privileges. They are using the federal and state governments to legitimize and pay for their primaries. Let the political parties run and pay for their own primaries. The state and federal government should only facilitate the candidacy of individuals to public office, it should not even acknowledge the existence of political parties. Maybe if we pretend for long enough, it will come true.
I don't think anyone is arguing that content providers have a responsibility to make their content available to anyone. You keep implying that violating laws is inherently immoral, and some people simply don't accept this premise. I don't accept this premise, and I am not even opposed to copyright laws.
I find the idea that intellectual property is not different than physical property to be ludicrous.
Is it illegal to see your neighbor's Ford and decide to build your own? Stealing a Ford or buying a stolen Ford is denying someone else that physical property. Building your own Ford is not denying anyone else a physical Ford. Maybe building your own Ford is denying the right of the Ford company to be the only entity allowed to make Ford cars. Maybe copyright infringement should be illegal. I think there are very good arguments to be made for that. But to say that they are not different is ridiculous.
It's called an analogy. You can make an analogy of a lemonade stand to a fortune 500 company, without implying that these 2 things are on the same scale. (i.e. it is a quantitative difference not a qualitative one)
You don't have to go that far to justify copyright infringement. All you need to do is simply not accept the premise that it is inherently immoral to violate laws (this is pretty easy, there are tons of terrible laws), and then not accept the premise that it is immoral to violate that specific law (a little harder, but still a lot easier than rejecting the idea that murder is immoral).
But there *is* a natural right to owning streams of ones and zeroes? You have a natural right to own particular configurations of electrons and photons? Rights are manifestations of government protection of those rights. Natural rights don't exist. But *if* they did exist, they certainly wouldn't include copyright. Copyright is just a tool to incentivize behavior (i.e. content creation). Copyright is no more a natural right than cash rebates for buying electric cars.
You don't think human beings are capable of murder? History is littered with the bodies of murder victims. For sure this guy is not a good example of our best qualities, but in the grand scheme of things, he's not such an outlier to no longer consider him human. His actions, while not typical are well within the range of observed human behaviors.
There are lots of bad people out there, and he's one of them.
The only guess is the average number of hours per frame. The time in seconds has a margin of error of +/- 59 maybe? Assuming that they would truncate instead of round when reporting the duration. Your numbers guess at all 3 of them, even when a guess is not even necessary because we know.
This was a criticism of the accuracy of your accuracy number.
Congratulations, your estimate is probably accurate within a factor of 10x.
According to you it was was within a factor of 2.85x. So the prediction appears to have exceeded expectations.
Welcome to Slashdot.
I am under no illusions that people like you are uncommon on slashdot.
If you are so confident that "Europe" is so wrong, then why is it necessary to misrepresent the truth? The issue is about solitary confinement. Yes this guy is a piece of shit. He is still a human being, and I applaud Norway for having the humanity and integrity to treat even it's worst people as human beings. It's easy to protect the rights of likeable people.
That's true. But I still don't think that the King Louie that Louis Prima voiced was "supposed to be" a cool black guy, unless Louis Prima was trying to be a cool black guy, even though King Louie was originally "supposed to be a" cool black guy (Louis Armstrong), in a different sense of phrase "supposed to be".
That's my point - if your goal is to estimate the total amount of computer hours used to render this movie, then why use anything other than the actual duration (105 minutes) and the actual frame rate (24)? Seriously, why use anything else? It's only going to be an estimation anyway, why introduce additional error into it?
Do you not know what guessing is? Does it ever make sense to guess when you know the answer to something?
There you go, still a ball park estimate but up to 285% more accurate!
except that you don't actually know how much more accurate it is because you are also guessing.
Is that where I said this: "Because if people can really only detect 24 fps"
yes
Because, based on words like "can really only" or "most people", I'll go with an answer like this:
The difference being that I have admitted from the beginning the things I am guessing about, and you've apparently just started now
That's a weasel way out. My original reply to you only said that the film was done at 24fps instead of 60, and you responded with how a lot of things coming out now are 60, and that you've seen trailers for the movie also at 60 (why does any of that matter if this movie was done at 24?).
It matters because I am suggesting that it's possible the movie will actually be rendered at a higher framerate than 24 even though that specific number was casually mentioned in the article.
So, no, I suppose you didn't specifically claim that the movie was at 60 fps, but you did everything but that.
I think the real issue is that I can't post some *ball park* numbers with a disclaimer, without someone trying to nitpick it. And even with your "more accurate" numbers, my ball park number is still within an order of magnitude (i.e. ball parks are large).
And, therefore, Jon Favreau decided to make The Jungle Book using 60 fps? Are you still after that claim?
I *never* made that claim.
In fact I specifically said "Ball park numbers" (i.e. I am guessing).
The claims I am making are regarding the utility of shooting in higher frame rates, and the history of modern movies (especially those focusing heavily on VFX/CGI) being shot/rendered in higher frame rates.
Even if a director wants to present their movie in 2d 24 fps film, there may be a market for IMAX 4k 3d 60 fps, blah blah blah version. You can always downgrade form higher quality source material.
You should also use a time of 3 hours for the movie, because I just think that story should be told in 3 hours regardless of what the reality is.
If most currently produced movies where 3 hours long, I probably would have used that ball park number.
I notice you did not make any sort of response to my claim that you are completely wrong about humans not being able to perceive framerates higher than 24. Does that mean you conceding this ridiculous point?
Slashdot Mirror
I trust an autonomous car to perform evasive maneuvers to avoid accidents or mitigate their damage much more than I trust the general population. I trust a wealthy fuck in an autonomous car more than a trust someone putting on makeup or texting in a regular car.
1. What I am getting at is that all the money that campaigns spend on stuff (commercials, signs, web sites, etc), individual people could just buy directly, bypassing the campaigns. I can make my own signs and hand them out to people, and it doesn't count as money spent by the campaign. This is the loophole that America has. It is why "money is speech" according to the supreme court. Does Canada close this loophole, or do people just not exploit it?
2. ok that makes some sense I guess
3. I am not talking about secertly slipping a politician a 20. I am talking about following the rules, but still effectively donating more than the per person cap.
I don't know how good you Canadians are at corruption, but let me enlighten you on how we do it here.
Scenario A: Donation pooling: I live in California and want to support candidate A. Bob lives in New York and wants to support candidate B. We can both donate $2700 to our candidate. But I get a great idea. What if Bob and I make a deal. I will also donate $2700 to his candidate if he donates $2700 to my candidate. And now multiply that out to every political race and every rich donor, and you have people basically donating hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars to help their candidate. They are actually only donating $2700 to each individual candidate, but they are buying more donations from other people with their own donations to their candidates, and vice versa.
Scenario B: My company would really like to donate lots of money to a particular candidate, but they are not allowed to. Only individuals are allowed to donate up to $2700 each to political campaigns. SO my company decides that they will give all their employees a great deal. They will give $5200 to each employee that donates $2700 to the candidate they support. Oh wait that seems a little sketchy. Ok they will donate $2 to a charity of the employees choice for every $1 they donate to the candidate. Now it's for a good cause.
And this is all following the existing rules of $2700 max per person donation. We don't have to do any of that shit now. Now we just anonymously donate as much money as we want to super PACs and we don't need to waste any more time coordinating individual donations.
The primary long term effect is death. It is also the primary short term effect.
I would love to see a good digital headphone standard come out
For instance, a future pair of headphones could monitor one's pulse or inner-ear temperature for fitness tracking, something that could only be possible if the headphones were connected to a smartphone via a USB-C cable.
On second thought if this is the best example you can come up with, I guess I really don't need or want digital headphones.
If you're using headphones (so no surround sound), you have to have good kit, the right kind of audio and good hearing for even 128kbps MP3s to be worse than essentially perfect.
That statement becomes true if you bump that 128 to like 192. 128 sounds like shit. Listen to any tracks with a lot of cymbals or lapping, and it sounds like you are listening underwater.
The best thing to do IMO is encode mp3 at variable bitrate. That way the bitrate can be adjusted to maintain a constant quality level depending on the complexity of the waveform.
1. So during the actual election, what are you not allowed to spend money on? Obviously I guess donating to political campaigns? Are you allowed to buy your own TV commercials promoting or attacking individuals or issues? Are you allowed to buy yard signs and give them out for free? Are you allowed to spend money creating an internet blog critical of certain candidates?
2. If you were not allowed to spend any of your own money, and you weren't getting any public money, how would you even do well in the first election to start getting public money?
3. Even in America before the citizens united supreme court decision, we had caps on individual contributions, and there was plenty of loopholes to get around it. In fact, I would argue that it's actually more transparent now, because you can actually see who is getting money from super pacs and who isn't. Before it was harder to figure out which individual contributions were legitimate and which were part of some scheme, now politicians get the bulk of their dirty money through super pacs because it's easier.
It's easy enough to fix: demand a constitutional amendment requiring that all monies spent in campaigns by and for *specific* political candidates must arise from a limited pool of public money. (This should not run afoul of the First Amendment, since candidates are not 'speech'.) All other monies routed to or spent by candidates or elected officials shall be considered bribes (including their own money).
I am not a big fan of this approach.
1. it is possible to spend money to help a candidate without giving that money to their official campaign. This is a giant loophole. Like if I hate Hillary Clinton, should I be prevented from spending money to spread my views? Or should the money and resources I spend be considered a donation to the Sanders Campaign? or to the Trump campaign?
2. How do we decide who is eligible to receive this public money and who is not? We can't have 50,000 people all receiving public campaign money. In almost every scenario I can imagine, this public campaign fund will be used to exclude people from entering political races. They will be barred from spending their own money, and they will be denied public money.
As bad as money in politics has become, I am still of the opinion that the cure to bad speech is more good speech (not restrictions on "bad" speech). It would be great if we could restrict bad speech, but ultimately it is too easy for these laws to be abused and used to silence legitimate speech. There was a reason the founding fathers wanted to allow *all* speech. It was so that there would be hard to restrict good speech by saying it was bad (i.e. because even bad speech is permitted). As a downside we have also have bad speech. That's one of the costs of a free society.
While I agree with you, the "public" primaries are also there to keep our choices from being completely controlled by back-room deals.
You can't stop back room deals. If candidate A and candidate B of a similar political persuasion agree to a deal to one of the two of them drop out based on a coin flip in a back room, in order to consolidate votes to a single candidate, you can't stop that.
I'd prefer to abolish party primaries and allow more open general election ballot access
We kind of already have that. Anyone can run for president. 3rd parties, independents, etc. And I agree that we should abolish the recognition of political parties by the government. I don't think you can or should stop people from proclaiming that they are a republican or a democrat. I don't even think we can stop parties from proclaiming who their chosen candidate is. If both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders run in the general election, the democratic party has the power to determine who is the legitimate democratic party candidate and who is the usurper on the actual ballot. If it were up to me, I would just present the names of all the candidates as equals. If the party wants to advertise to it's members who the real nominee is, they can do that with their own money.
(although I don't think having 20+ people on the ballot for a single position is necessarily an improvement, so some legitimate signature minimums or something should exist)
I think it would be a vast improvement
Go to a ranked voting system, where you can rank up to 3 candidates, and you rarely would need a run-off.
Why not just rank as many candidates as you want? Why limit it to 3? You can have as many instant runoffs as you want for free. There is no reason to have a separate runoff election if you can completely capture a voters preference on one ballot.
The Repubocrats and Demlicans would never allow that though.
Democracy isn't easy. It's hard to get people to care. And once they care, it's hard to get them to care about the same thing. Also, it's a personal preference, but I prefer "republicrats" and "demoplicans".
They should be able to nominate whoever they want, in whatever method they want, fair or not. The real problem is that they get special privileges. They are using the federal and state governments to legitimize and pay for their primaries. Let the political parties run and pay for their own primaries. The state and federal government should only facilitate the candidacy of individuals to public office, it should not even acknowledge the existence of political parties. Maybe if we pretend for long enough, it will come true.
I don't think anyone is arguing that content providers have a responsibility to make their content available to anyone. You keep implying that violating laws is inherently immoral, and some people simply don't accept this premise. I don't accept this premise, and I am not even opposed to copyright laws.
I find the idea that intellectual property is not different than physical property to be ludicrous. Is it illegal to see your neighbor's Ford and decide to build your own? Stealing a Ford or buying a stolen Ford is denying someone else that physical property. Building your own Ford is not denying anyone else a physical Ford. Maybe building your own Ford is denying the right of the Ford company to be the only entity allowed to make Ford cars. Maybe copyright infringement should be illegal. I think there are very good arguments to be made for that. But to say that they are not different is ridiculous.
It's called an analogy. You can make an analogy of a lemonade stand to a fortune 500 company, without implying that these 2 things are on the same scale. (i.e. it is a quantitative difference not a qualitative one)
You don't have to go that far to justify copyright infringement. All you need to do is simply not accept the premise that it is inherently immoral to violate laws (this is pretty easy, there are tons of terrible laws), and then not accept the premise that it is immoral to violate that specific law (a little harder, but still a lot easier than rejecting the idea that murder is immoral).
But there *is* a natural right to owning streams of ones and zeroes? You have a natural right to own particular configurations of electrons and photons? Rights are manifestations of government protection of those rights. Natural rights don't exist. But *if* they did exist, they certainly wouldn't include copyright. Copyright is just a tool to incentivize behavior (i.e. content creation). Copyright is no more a natural right than cash rebates for buying electric cars.
Now that Mitsubishi is in the limelight for being the latest car company to pull a Volkswagen... oh wait...
I thought this was America! Shouldn't we at least get to vote in a rigged election on it?
Sorry. I think it has to be Boaty Boatface to follow the Ubuntu standards.
You don't think human beings are capable of murder? History is littered with the bodies of murder victims. For sure this guy is not a good example of our best qualities, but in the grand scheme of things, he's not such an outlier to no longer consider him human. His actions, while not typical are well within the range of observed human behaviors.
There are lots of bad people out there, and he's one of them.
The only guess is the average number of hours per frame. The time in seconds has a margin of error of +/- 59 maybe? Assuming that they would truncate instead of round when reporting the duration. Your numbers guess at all 3 of them, even when a guess is not even necessary because we know.
This was a criticism of the accuracy of your accuracy number.
Congratulations, your estimate is probably accurate within a factor of 10x.
According to you it was was within a factor of 2.85x. So the prediction appears to have exceeded expectations.
Welcome to Slashdot.
I am under no illusions that people like you are uncommon on slashdot.
I sounds like Mormons have a really serious problem with pornography triggering some kind of latent immorality that the rest of us apparently lack.
That's true if we consider the need to have the desire for vengeance satiated a basic human right.
If you are so confident that "Europe" is so wrong, then why is it necessary to misrepresent the truth? The issue is about solitary confinement. Yes this guy is a piece of shit. He is still a human being, and I applaud Norway for having the humanity and integrity to treat even it's worst people as human beings. It's easy to protect the rights of likeable people.
That's true. But I still don't think that the King Louie that Louis Prima voiced was "supposed to be" a cool black guy, unless Louis Prima was trying to be a cool black guy, even though King Louie was originally "supposed to be a" cool black guy (Louis Armstrong), in a different sense of phrase "supposed to be".
That's my point - if your goal is to estimate the total amount of computer hours used to render this movie, then why use anything other than the actual duration (105 minutes) and the actual frame rate (24)? Seriously, why use anything else? It's only going to be an estimation anyway, why introduce additional error into it?
Do you not know what guessing is? Does it ever make sense to guess when you know the answer to something?
There you go, still a ball park estimate but up to 285% more accurate!
except that you don't actually know how much more accurate it is because you are also guessing.
Is that where I said this: "Because if people can really only detect 24 fps"
yes
Because, based on words like "can really only" or "most people", I'll go with an answer like this:
The difference being that I have admitted from the beginning the things I am guessing about, and you've apparently just started now
That's a weasel way out. My original reply to you only said that the film was done at 24fps instead of 60, and you responded with how a lot of things coming out now are 60, and that you've seen trailers for the movie also at 60 (why does any of that matter if this movie was done at 24?).
It matters because I am suggesting that it's possible the movie will actually be rendered at a higher framerate than 24 even though that specific number was casually mentioned in the article.
So, no, I suppose you didn't specifically claim that the movie was at 60 fps, but you did everything but that.
I think the real issue is that I can't post some *ball park* numbers with a disclaimer, without someone trying to nitpick it. And even with your "more accurate" numbers, my ball park number is still within an order of magnitude (i.e. ball parks are large).
And, therefore, Jon Favreau decided to make The Jungle Book using 60 fps? Are you still after that claim?
I *never* made that claim.
In fact I specifically said "Ball park numbers" (i.e. I am guessing).
The claims I am making are regarding the utility of shooting in higher frame rates, and the history of modern movies (especially those focusing heavily on VFX/CGI) being shot/rendered in higher frame rates.
Even if a director wants to present their movie in 2d 24 fps film, there may be a market for IMAX 4k 3d 60 fps, blah blah blah version. You can always downgrade form higher quality source material.
You should also use a time of 3 hours for the movie, because I just think that story should be told in 3 hours regardless of what the reality is.
If most currently produced movies where 3 hours long, I probably would have used that ball park number.
I notice you did not make any sort of response to my claim that you are completely wrong about humans not being able to perceive framerates higher than 24. Does that mean you conceding this ridiculous point?