Because if people can really only detect 24 fps, who cares, why not just do 500 times the work to produce a product that people will experience the same way?
Are you blind?
VR headsets are trying to bump up the standard video game rendering rate to 60 to 90 so people don't get motion sickness
If you don't think people can tell the difference between 24 fps and higher frame rates, you must have some pretty severe vision problems.
Yeah there are frame rates high enough where human beings can't differentiate them anymore, it's just not anywhere near 24.
Why would they do 2 and a half times the work when they don't need to? Why should they spend 2 and half times as long to create the movie when they don't need to?
They don't need to do anything this. They don't need to make it so realistic. They don't need to make a 3d version. They don't even need to make a movie. Why would they do any of this?
Film is traditionally 24 fps, but I a lot of stuff coming out now is 60, especially stuff shot in 3d. Even if some might want to view the film in 24 fps, "shooting" at a higher framerate gives you the option of a high framerate release.
The Campbell court held that hip-hop group 2 Live Crew's parody of the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" was fair use, even though the parody was sold for profit. Thus, having a commercial purpose does not preclude a use from being found fair, even though it makes it less likely.
The transformative nature of computer based analytical processes such as text mining, web mining and data mining has led many to form the view that such uses would be protected under fair use. This view was substantiated by the rulings of Judge Denny Chin in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., a case involving mass digitisation of millions of books from research library collections. As part of the ruling that found the book digitisation project was fair use, the judge stated "Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas".
Maybe you don't think anything commercial *should* fall under fair use. But currently the courts disagree and commercial things can be covered by fair use.
The "monkey" was actually voiced by Louis Prima (a Sicillian) who was actually a pretty famous jazz musician and singer. He wrote and composed Sing Sing Sing, probably the most widely known swing song.
Ball park numbers:
35 hours per frame
120 frames per second (2x 60 fps)
7200 seconds (2 hours) per movie
= 30,240,000 hours to render the movie
= 3452 years
I'm sure they have a cluster of computers dividing up the workload, but still...
As for your challenge about religion that's pretty easy. A religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices within organizational framework for the purpose of decimating the intergenerational continuity of beliefs in particular mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places and ethics.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the word "decimate" makes sense in this sentence. So even with this definition you presented, does a potential religion need to satisfy one, some, or all of these criteria to meet the overall criterion?
They might need to see the secrets of scientology to know if the people are acting as if they believe the tennets of their own religion. You can't ascertain this without knowing what their tennets are. The constitution guarantees equality under the law. This means simply saying "scientology is obviously a religion and FSM is obviously not" is not good enough. You need to create an objective test and allow every self professed religion to either pass or fail this test on it's own merit.
The same way that if you tell me that object X has a heart and brain I don't need to see hip bone to verify its an animal and not a plant.
Are you saying that there is no objective way to tell if an object is a plant or an animal? or that it is not important to be objective?
*In general*, I agree religions are hard to pin down. For concrete instances though, it's less gray than people generally wish to believe as you really can take into account your best understanding of the proponent's intent.
There are certainly black and white instances of religion vs non-religion. Is Christianity a religion? If it's not, then I don't know what a religion is. For sure FSM is in the gray and probably intentionally so. I don't think this absolves the government's responsibility to define religion in an objective way, and subject all self proclaimed religions to the same test. The United States has historically been very lax when it comes to denying religious status to various groups. They allow con-men to have tax exempt status, because the freedom of religion is so sacred that we are willing to tolerate fraud to protect against the possibility of a violation of this freedom.
Again, to restate... the question here isn't whether religions are special or deserve any special treatment. The question here is whether FSM and it's proponents are doing anything other than trying to cynically game the system
That's not the question, because we kind of already know the answer. They are definitely trying to game the system. But so are other religions. They are in my mind actually better than these mega church televangelists douchebags conning money out of desperate people who can't afford it. The point is that in order to legally grant religions special status the government has the burden to objectively define a religion. And as far as I can tell, they have not done that and have no interest in doing that, probably because it's impossible.
I struggle to agree with this, because FSM deliberately and consciously espouses things they ALL don't believe in. This seems blatantly different to the situation where there's internal debate within a religion (e.g., your Jesus example is a good one). Find me a FSM practitioner who actually believes their stories, and I'll happily reconsider:-)
All it would take is for one true FSM believer to make this false. There is lots of crazy people out there. If some local FSM chapter manages to convince a mentally unstable person that it is real, they've basically become mormonism or scientology. Is it really necessary to actually go down that road, or can it be enough just to demonstrate that that road exists?
Furthermore, what if the FSM adjusts their belief system to include some genuine ones (i.e. they stop professing only satricial beliefs)? Then what? What if they start conning seniors out of their social security money? How far do they need to go to meet the qualifications of a religion? You can't just disqualify them for being the FSM. We are a nation of laws, and we are supposed to have equality under the law.
Either way... I've enjoyed the discussion with you!
And this is a religious activity? I mean, that sounds like something people do when discussing football, or politics, or work colleagues. In effect, you're proving precisely the judge's point though. It's an arbitrary set of actions, made up by an arbitrary group and branded as religion as a point of satire.
One of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians is that religious belief should not get special privileges. One might argue that they believe this "religiously". It is indeed satire, so I think the judge is correct there. I think where the judge is wrong is arbitrarily deciding that any form of satire is necessarily disqualified as a religion.
A satire-of-a-religion is *not* a religion, and should not be treated as such.
The point pastafarians are making is that a satire of a religion is not objectively distinguishable from a "real" religion, and *no* belief should be given the privileged status currently given to religious beliefs.
And I think they are successful in the sense that it is pretty damn hard to come up with a set of objective laws that includes only certain religions. And I believe this is also a usefool argument in showing why the endeavor of granting religions special privileges is not practical nor fair.
Any attempts reframe it as a *genuine* religion is a blatant troll... because FSM doesn't see itself as anything other than satire.
The whole point is that there is no objective way to frame anything as a *genuine* religion. And I disagree that the FSM doesn;t see itself as anything other than satire. They certainly see themselves as satire, but not *only* satire. They certainly believe in the cause they are fighting for. Yes FSM is trolling people. To say that the definition of a religion is a set of beliefs of which none are satirical or troll-like, is arbitrary.
("But what if the other religions are also satire?"... even if we imagine for a moment that religions somehow started as satire, the majority of them are now genuinely held beliefs. FSM is still openly satire.
I never made this argument, but I know others have. I don't doubt that the adherents of other religions have genuine beliefs. It's hard to fly a plane into a building if you don't. I am saying that the FSM has genuine beliefs too. They *also* have satirical non-genuine beliefs in addition to their genuine beliefs.
This is analogous to how members of other religions may not believe in every literal claim their religion makes. Some christians don't even believe that Jesus was anything more than a normal human being with some good ideas.
It is indeed. But even if the individual does not actually believe in any of this, we should have the same standard for everyone. If we are going to doubt this person's belief, we should also doubt the beliefs of self professed christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. Maybe they should have to pass a religious test supplied by their church in order to claim membership.
The demands for outfits and worship (two things FSM openly mocks) make as much sense as your local Buddhist trying to get a religious grant for their Ferrari...
That's not true. One of the core beliefs of Pastafarians is the power of mocking other people. And their traditional way of doing this is through outfits and worship.
The FSM certainly contains satire, but it also contains genuine beliefs that are not satire, one of which is the belief that satire is a good tool for their goal of "belief equality" (e.g. that certain religious beliefs should not have special privileges).
The thing with laws is that you need to make them objective. Try coming up with a law that defines an objective difference between religious and non-religious belief.
Clearly they believe in "something". Their public belief system is obviously satire, but that doesn't mean there is not an actual belief system that is not publicly shared. Other religions like Scientology and LDS have religious secrets that are not supposed to be publicly available.
Courts don't demand to know what's inside the Mormon temples or what secrets are revealed to an OT8 to validate them as a real religion. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians can simply be inferred.
Pastafarians absolutely have real beliefs, they are just different than their professed beliefs. Part of pastafarianism is to profess certain ridiculous beliefs even if you don't really believe them (i.e. like Catholics and transubstantiation).
Rastafarians definitely have beliefs. They believe in satire as a legitimate way to express their belief that religions should not be given special treatment above other beliefs. They believe that satire is a good way to highlight the fact that our definition is ambiguous and subjective. They are not just beliefs, they are meta beliefs (beliefs about beliefs). So while pastafarians do not believe they beliefs to profess. The profession of ridiculous beliefs is part of their actual belief system.
Not breaking from character is an important property of a good pastafarian. I am obviously not a pastafraian in good standing.
Reproducing a famous experiment is doing science. Re-enacting it for kids is "pro-science" but it is not doing science. What if the experiment had gone wrong? Would they record the results and try to publish them? Or would they just reshoot it until it worked for TV?
What makes it not science is not that it is not groundbreaking. Real scientists try to reproduce experimental results all the time. My point is that that when you kind of fudge it for a TV show your intent is not to do actual science it is to film a TV show and to teach kids. Doing a real scientific experiment (even one that has already been done) in a way that is scientifically useful is probably not good children's TV.
It's kind of like a real experiment like how a children's toy piano is kind of like a real musical instrument. Hey it has five notes, you can probably play some songs on it, but at the end of the day, when you find it at a good will, it's in the toy section and not the musical instrument section. But it's certainly more of a musical instrument than a toy car.
I put "scientific thinking" in quotes for a reason. The formalized scientific method didn't just come from no where. It arose out of the human predisposition to think abstractly to solve problems. Before "science", we had an innate ability to do proto-science (e.g. The last 2 people that ate this mushroom they died, so that mushroom must be poisonous, etc). This is what people who are not trained in the scientific method still have, and it is what I am talking about.
I don't think this rises to the level of true science. But I don't think what Bill Nye does, does either.
You don't need a degree, research budget and to be published to be a scientist.
That's true, but you still need to be doing actual science rather than just science-like things.
Is re-enacting a famous experiment on television for kids doing real science? I don't think that it's impossible to provide the same level of scientific of rigor just because an experiment is on TV and for kids, but I am just pretty sure that it isn't. The TV shows are giving kids the gist of what science is.
Does Bill Nye use "scientific thinking" in his daily life? Yeah, probably. I think we all do to varying degrees. He was an engineer. I don't think you can escape "scientific thinking" if you are an engineer (e.g. designing things, and testing them).>/p>
But I'm sure Sarah Palin also "thinks scientifically" occasionally just by virtue of possessing a human brain.
Where do we draw the line between "real science" and "science-like things". I would draw it above whatever it is that Bill Nye does.
That doesn't mean that Bill Nye doesn't know a lot more about science than Sarah Palin. It doesn't mean that Bill Nye isn't more qualified to talk about science. Sarah Palin is right (in my mind) that neither of them are scientists, but she is wrong that this implies that they are equally authoritative about science, because Sarah Palin is an idiot.
We have had continuous advances in AI for a long time. Autopilots in airplanes, self driving cars, high frequency trading, google search, the netflix movie suggester, shazam music recognition, face recognition, fedex delivery route planners, IBM watson.
Hell I got a solar panel telemarketing call yesterday that had a non-robotic voice, and it took me about 30 seconds before I could decide that it was probably a robot and not just being evasive, and I'm still not sure (because I just hung up).
And you are probably going to just say "none of those are AI", but as a person with a computer science degree from a good school who specialized in AI, that's the kind of stuff we learned.
Slashdot Mirror
Because if people can really only detect 24 fps, who cares, why not just do 500 times the work to produce a product that people will experience the same way?
Are you blind?
VR headsets are trying to bump up the standard video game rendering rate to 60 to 90 so people don't get motion sickness
If you don't think people can tell the difference between 24 fps and higher frame rates, you must have some pretty severe vision problems.
Yeah there are frame rates high enough where human beings can't differentiate them anymore, it's just not anywhere near 24.
Why would they do 2 and a half times the work when they don't need to? Why should they spend 2 and half times as long to create the movie when they don't need to?
They don't need to do anything this. They don't need to make it so realistic. They don't need to make a 3d version. They don't even need to make a movie. Why would they do any of this?
Film is traditionally 24 fps, but I a lot of stuff coming out now is 60, especially stuff shot in 3d. Even if some might want to view the film in 24 fps, "shooting" at a higher framerate gives you the option of a high framerate release.
There are jungle book trailers that are 60 fps.
Google is destroying the middle class now? Which companies are *not* destroying the middle class? Maybe we should outlaw companies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use
The Campbell court held that hip-hop group 2 Live Crew's parody of the song "Oh, Pretty Woman" was fair use, even though the parody was sold for profit. Thus, having a commercial purpose does not preclude a use from being found fair, even though it makes it less likely.
The transformative nature of computer based analytical processes such as text mining, web mining and data mining has led many to form the view that such uses would be protected under fair use. This view was substantiated by the rulings of Judge Denny Chin in Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google, Inc., a case involving mass digitisation of millions of books from research library collections. As part of the ruling that found the book digitisation project was fair use, the judge stated "Google Books is also transformative in the sense that it has transformed book text into data for purposes of substantive research, including data mining and text mining in new areas".
Maybe you don't think anything commercial *should* fall under fair use. But currently the courts disagree and commercial things can be covered by fair use.
The "monkey" was actually voiced by Louis Prima (a Sicillian) who was actually a pretty famous jazz musician and singer. He wrote and composed Sing Sing Sing, probably the most widely known swing song.
Ball park numbers:
35 hours per frame
120 frames per second (2x 60 fps)
7200 seconds (2 hours) per movie
= 30,240,000 hours to render the movie
= 3452 years
I'm sure they have a cluster of computers dividing up the workload, but still...
That's cool, I'm not one of those people that tries to win arguments by pointing out spelling errors :)
As for your challenge about religion that's pretty easy. A religion is a cultural system of behaviors and practices within organizational framework for the purpose of decimating the intergenerational continuity of beliefs in particular mythologies, world views, sacred texts, holy places and ethics.
Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't think the word "decimate" makes sense in this sentence. So even with this definition you presented, does a potential religion need to satisfy one, some, or all of these criteria to meet the overall criterion?
They might need to see the secrets of scientology to know if the people are acting as if they believe the tennets of their own religion. You can't ascertain this without knowing what their tennets are. The constitution guarantees equality under the law. This means simply saying "scientology is obviously a religion and FSM is obviously not" is not good enough. You need to create an objective test and allow every self professed religion to either pass or fail this test on it's own merit.
The same way that if you tell me that object X has a heart and brain I don't need to see hip bone to verify its an animal and not a plant.
Are you saying that there is no objective way to tell if an object is a plant or an animal? or that it is not important to be objective?
*In general*, I agree religions are hard to pin down. For concrete instances though, it's less gray than people generally wish to believe as you really can take into account your best understanding of the proponent's intent.
There are certainly black and white instances of religion vs non-religion. Is Christianity a religion? If it's not, then I don't know what a religion is. For sure FSM is in the gray and probably intentionally so. I don't think this absolves the government's responsibility to define religion in an objective way, and subject all self proclaimed religions to the same test. The United States has historically been very lax when it comes to denying religious status to various groups. They allow con-men to have tax exempt status, because the freedom of religion is so sacred that we are willing to tolerate fraud to protect against the possibility of a violation of this freedom.
Again, to restate... the question here isn't whether religions are special or deserve any special treatment. The question here is whether FSM and it's proponents are doing anything other than trying to cynically game the system
That's not the question, because we kind of already know the answer. They are definitely trying to game the system. But so are other religions. They are in my mind actually better than these mega church televangelists douchebags conning money out of desperate people who can't afford it. The point is that in order to legally grant religions special status the government has the burden to objectively define a religion. And as far as I can tell, they have not done that and have no interest in doing that, probably because it's impossible.
I struggle to agree with this, because FSM deliberately and consciously espouses things they ALL don't believe in. This seems blatantly different to the situation where there's internal debate within a religion (e.g., your Jesus example is a good one). Find me a FSM practitioner who actually believes their stories, and I'll happily reconsider :-)
All it would take is for one true FSM believer to make this false. There is lots of crazy people out there. If some local FSM chapter manages to convince a mentally unstable person that it is real, they've basically become mormonism or scientology. Is it really necessary to actually go down that road, or can it be enough just to demonstrate that that road exists?
Furthermore, what if the FSM adjusts their belief system to include some genuine ones (i.e. they stop professing only satricial beliefs)? Then what? What if they start conning seniors out of their social security money? How far do they need to go to meet the qualifications of a religion? You can't just disqualify them for being the FSM. We are a nation of laws, and we are supposed to have equality under the law.
Either way... I've enjoyed the discussion with you!
me too
And this is a religious activity? I mean, that sounds like something people do when discussing football, or politics, or work colleagues. In effect, you're proving precisely the judge's point though. It's an arbitrary set of actions, made up by an arbitrary group and branded as religion as a point of satire.
One of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians is that religious belief should not get special privileges. One might argue that they believe this "religiously". It is indeed satire, so I think the judge is correct there. I think where the judge is wrong is arbitrarily deciding that any form of satire is necessarily disqualified as a religion.
A satire-of-a-religion is *not* a religion, and should not be treated as such.
The point pastafarians are making is that a satire of a religion is not objectively distinguishable from a "real" religion, and *no* belief should be given the privileged status currently given to religious beliefs.
And I think they are successful in the sense that it is pretty damn hard to come up with a set of objective laws that includes only certain religions. And I believe this is also a usefool argument in showing why the endeavor of granting religions special privileges is not practical nor fair.
Any attempts reframe it as a *genuine* religion is a blatant troll... because FSM doesn't see itself as anything other than satire.
The whole point is that there is no objective way to frame anything as a *genuine* religion. And I disagree that the FSM doesn;t see itself as anything other than satire. They certainly see themselves as satire, but not *only* satire. They certainly believe in the cause they are fighting for. Yes FSM is trolling people. To say that the definition of a religion is a set of beliefs of which none are satirical or troll-like, is arbitrary.
("But what if the other religions are also satire?"... even if we imagine for a moment that religions somehow started as satire, the majority of them are now genuinely held beliefs. FSM is still openly satire.
I never made this argument, but I know others have. I don't doubt that the adherents of other religions have genuine beliefs. It's hard to fly a plane into a building if you don't. I am saying that the FSM has genuine beliefs too. They *also* have satirical non-genuine beliefs in addition to their genuine beliefs.
This is analogous to how members of other religions may not believe in every literal claim their religion makes. Some christians don't even believe that Jesus was anything more than a normal human being with some good ideas.
It is indeed. But even if the individual does not actually believe in any of this, we should have the same standard for everyone. If we are going to doubt this person's belief, we should also doubt the beliefs of self professed christians, jews, muslims, buddhists, hindus, etc. Maybe they should have to pass a religious test supplied by their church in order to claim membership.
That's not true. One of the core beliefs of Pastafarians is the power of mocking other people. And their traditional way of doing this is through outfits and worship.
And not anyone can be a judge. You need to be qualified to raise enough money to win the judge election in your area.
The FSM certainly contains satire, but it also contains genuine beliefs that are not satire, one of which is the belief that satire is a good tool for their goal of "belief equality" (e.g. that certain religious beliefs should not have special privileges).
The thing with laws is that you need to make them objective. Try coming up with a law that defines an objective difference between religious and non-religious belief.
Clearly they believe in "something". Their public belief system is obviously satire, but that doesn't mean there is not an actual belief system that is not publicly shared. Other religions like Scientology and LDS have religious secrets that are not supposed to be publicly available.
Courts don't demand to know what's inside the Mormon temples or what secrets are revealed to an OT8 to validate them as a real religion. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the genuine beliefs of pastafarians can simply be inferred.
Pastafarians absolutely have real beliefs, they are just different than their professed beliefs. Part of pastafarianism is to profess certain ridiculous beliefs even if you don't really believe them (i.e. like Catholics and transubstantiation).
Rastafarians definitely have beliefs. They believe in satire as a legitimate way to express their belief that religions should not be given special treatment above other beliefs. They believe that satire is a good way to highlight the fact that our definition is ambiguous and subjective. They are not just beliefs, they are meta beliefs (beliefs about beliefs). So while pastafarians do not believe they beliefs to profess. The profession of ridiculous beliefs is part of their actual belief system.
Not breaking from character is an important property of a good pastafarian. I am obviously not a pastafraian in good standing.
Reproducing a famous experiment is doing science. Re-enacting it for kids is "pro-science" but it is not doing science. What if the experiment had gone wrong? Would they record the results and try to publish them? Or would they just reshoot it until it worked for TV?
What makes it not science is not that it is not groundbreaking. Real scientists try to reproduce experimental results all the time. My point is that that when you kind of fudge it for a TV show your intent is not to do actual science it is to film a TV show and to teach kids. Doing a real scientific experiment (even one that has already been done) in a way that is scientifically useful is probably not good children's TV.
It's kind of like a real experiment like how a children's toy piano is kind of like a real musical instrument. Hey it has five notes, you can probably play some songs on it, but at the end of the day, when you find it at a good will, it's in the toy section and not the musical instrument section. But it's certainly more of a musical instrument than a toy car.
We will have to wait until she's dead to do an autopsy.
I put "scientific thinking" in quotes for a reason. The formalized scientific method didn't just come from no where. It arose out of the human predisposition to think abstractly to solve problems. Before "science", we had an innate ability to do proto-science (e.g. The last 2 people that ate this mushroom they died, so that mushroom must be poisonous, etc). This is what people who are not trained in the scientific method still have, and it is what I am talking about.
I don't think this rises to the level of true science. But I don't think what Bill Nye does, does either.
You don't need a degree, research budget and to be published to be a scientist.
That's true, but you still need to be doing actual science rather than just science-like things.
Is re-enacting a famous experiment on television for kids doing real science? I don't think that it's impossible to provide the same level of scientific of rigor just because an experiment is on TV and for kids, but I am just pretty sure that it isn't. The TV shows are giving kids the gist of what science is.
Does Bill Nye use "scientific thinking" in his daily life? Yeah, probably. I think we all do to varying degrees. He was an engineer. I don't think you can escape "scientific thinking" if you are an engineer (e.g. designing things, and testing them).>/p>
But I'm sure Sarah Palin also "thinks scientifically" occasionally just by virtue of possessing a human brain.
Where do we draw the line between "real science" and "science-like things". I would draw it above whatever it is that Bill Nye does.
That doesn't mean that Bill Nye doesn't know a lot more about science than Sarah Palin. It doesn't mean that Bill Nye isn't more qualified to talk about science. Sarah Palin is right (in my mind) that neither of them are scientists, but she is wrong that this implies that they are equally authoritative about science, because Sarah Palin is an idiot.
We have had continuous advances in AI for a long time. Autopilots in airplanes, self driving cars, high frequency trading, google search, the netflix movie suggester, shazam music recognition, face recognition, fedex delivery route planners, IBM watson.
Hell I got a solar panel telemarketing call yesterday that had a non-robotic voice, and it took me about 30 seconds before I could decide that it was probably a robot and not just being evasive, and I'm still not sure (because I just hung up).
And you are probably going to just say "none of those are AI", but as a person with a computer science degree from a good school who specialized in AI, that's the kind of stuff we learned.