So, the two likely scenarios would be: 1) The US test firing something, but nobody knows who or what just yet because it is being kept secret. 2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.
I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.
My guess is its one of those situations where Cameron invented it, until Autocad and friends open their decades of patent portfolios for enhanced animated architectural walkthrus and smash them, uh, then I guess it turns out those engineers invented it instead.
Honest question... are these the same thing? I honestly don't know since I've never used autocad.
Does it support a real-time mapping between the live performance of an actor and a partial result towards the final animation?
Some patents are just plain stupid, some represent a real jump in the state of the art. Which is this? (And, did Cameron even patent it?)
That sets the bar for the concept of "invention" pretty damn low. If one can claim invented status for anything you can dream of, then I can produce quite a list of inventions on my resume. It's the actually making it work that is the hard part
I specifically said "and had someone build it for him"... meaning he didn't just come up with the idea, he footed the development costs, and probably had to explain his grand vision to people to try to get them to build it. He probably needed to iterate over a couple of prototypes to get to the final thing.
And, since the engineers likely weren't sitting around inventing this non-existent thing... someone has to be the one who invented it.
owning is one thing, being attributed as the inventor is another.
It's a work for hire. I'm sure if the Academy gives an award for the technology, the guys who built it will be the ones receiving it.
But, for public discussion, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to say that if Cameron envisioned it, paid for it, pioneered its use, and made it become more than a technology testbed... well, he may have invented it in the broadest sense of the word. He didn't build it, but maybe he did invent it.
I'm sure there are a lot fewer model-makers/matte painters since the advent of CG
Actually, it's my understanding they still use the model-makers and old school techniques, they just integrate them with the digital stuff.
I seem to recall seeing something that one of the big CG houses (Pixar?) actually had physical skeleton models to let the old-school animators move the wireframe since they got much more realistic results.
I think they actually use hybrid systems to really good effect.
James Cameron invented it? Really? Why not name the (team) of engineers that really did it.
If Cameron came up with the idea and had someone build it for him, I'd say you could argue he invented it.
He may not have been the one doing the technical details, but if it's his concept developed on his dime... well, my past employers own the works I did for them, so why not in this case?
The people we most want getting prompt STD infection results are the ones who already aren't competent to keep safe by practicing safe sex.
There isn't really such things as "safe" sex, but "safer" sex. Meaning "less risky", but not "risk free". If you come in contact with someone else, there's always a risk.
Full body latex and a gas mask might get you "safe sex" though. Of course, that's not for everyone.:-P
Scotsmen have a solution that should also help with the laptop-caused problem.
Oh, aye! There's nothing like walking about in a kilt in 3 degrees celcius to keep the boys nicely aired out and cool. Trust me, I've done it.
On a really windy day your buttocks can get a wee bit chilled -- though your sporran keeps the front of the kilt in place and held down. Though, on a boat deck, I once gave some German tourists more than they bargained for.;-)
What the fuck could MS lose if the Kinect driver is open-sourced?
Possibly money -- the XBox hardware was a loss leader for the first several years. They sold it at a loss to encourage people to buy the games. This might be something in the same boat -- what they sell it for doesn't recoup their costs.
"Tamper-resistant"? The Hell? They placed an explosive charge in it, or why do they have to make it tamper-proof? If someone wants to tamper with it, they probably know enough to disable/circumvent/subvert the safeguards, and if the can't, they probably wouldn't mess around with it in the first place
Ah, but the safeguards will be digital. Which means they can invoke the DMCA to say that you're violating federal law by defeating their safeguards, and they will issue a cease and desist. And, they're saying if they have to, they'll keep up the arms race to make it harder/more illegal to reverse engineer this.
Nowadays, just by saying "this is a digital lock, you are not allowed to open it", you can get an awful lot of legal clout to back you.:(
The other logical conclusion being that the amount of sweaty, nasty sex they'll be having with a college co-ed while on spring break is, in all likelihood, vastly overestimated.
They'll get loaded with their buddies, see some girl flash her boobs, and that's about it. Then they'll get home and realize they dumped their girlfriends for nothing.
... so can someone in-the-know explain why these awards always increase as trials go on and on?
RIAA. Lawyers. Legislation which has been purchased to be in their favor.
When you can equate file-sharing with huge-scale counterfeiting and theft, you can make it look like on paper she denied the industry of millions and millions of revenue.
I believe the statutory damages are $275K/song or so, so for the six songs...
Here is the thing. I'm already paying them to build this infrastructure. They are selling me a service at advertised speeds which they cannot uphold if everyone they sell it to wants to use it. If everyone wants to use it they need to either lower their advertised speeds, cancel subscriptions, or increase their bandwidth. They have already set the price for the speed they are delivering, and if people want it they need to provide it.
Actually, they haven't done that.
What they've done is intentionally sold more than they actually have in the hopes that most people will never need it. If you cut too deeply into their profit margins, they'll change the rules so you get less (which is why we've been seeing bandwidth caps get introduced).
You're paying them to maintain the status quo and try to milk it for all it's worth. Your version of it is a little more idealistic and assumes that they're in the business of providing as much bandwidth as people want -- they're really in the bandwidth of selling more than they actually have. There's no profit to be had in investing in capacity beyond certain levels.
Think of it as more of a pyramid scheme that trying to meet the capacity they market. They will always win, and they will just simply change the rules in their favor. If someone forced them to upgrade their networks, they'd just add a line-item to your bill.
Remember, they control the rules of the game. There is no Queen on the table, and you can't win.
But it's all pretty much the same thing if you trace it far enough. Stock options and bonuses are usually tied to the company's profit margins. In that case, lowering profits is roughly the same, right?
From the bottom, it seems like in some comapnies the execs get bonuses no matter what since they stack the deck in their favor. It's like elected officials voting themselves a raise every year.
At the 'C' level, it seems like they figure they're entitled to $50 million in options just for showing up and trying -- actual performance of the company doesn't seem to matter.
However, how will this be paid for? They say it should be the Googles and the Netflixes, I say it should come out of their CEO's new yacht fund. That, I think, is where the point of contention lies.
You would need to get a change at the SEC level for that, and you would never get it done.
As I understand it, the stock options and bonuses given to executives are accounted different for than, say, the combined vacation balance of the entire company.
The vacation balances are a line item in the financial statement as a liability. Even if the executives receive more value in stock options than the entire vacation balance of the company... the vacation balance is more of a big deal because they have to be stated on the balance sheet.
The executive stock options and bonuses is funny money that comes from someplace else, so according to GAAP, they're not tracked the same way. Short of convincing the entire business world that execs should give up their perks in order to not be siphoning off shareholder value for their own benefit since it's not handled the same way.
(Anybody who is more knowledgeable about this please feel to correct me -- this is a summary of something that was explained to me several years ago based on an actual scenario. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I've got it wrong or missed some of the nuance.)
That's a stunningly deep analysis of information sharing/leakage between two parties as inferred by an outside observer in response to a joke about my perception of Facebook being more or less the functional equivalent of the high-school rumor game.
Slashdot Mirror
So, the two likely scenarios would be: 1) The US test firing something, but nobody knows who or what just yet because it is being kept secret. 2) Someone else firing off missiles off the coast of the US to demonstrate a point.
I consider 1) likely, and 2) just downright scary.
Honest question ... are these the same thing? I honestly don't know since I've never used autocad.
Does it support a real-time mapping between the live performance of an actor and a partial result towards the final animation?
Some patents are just plain stupid, some represent a real jump in the state of the art. Which is this? (And, did Cameron even patent it?)
I specifically said "and had someone build it for him" ... meaning he didn't just come up with the idea, he footed the development costs, and probably had to explain his grand vision to people to try to get them to build it. He probably needed to iterate over a couple of prototypes to get to the final thing.
And, since the engineers likely weren't sitting around inventing this non-existent thing ... someone has to be the one who invented it.
It's a work for hire. I'm sure if the Academy gives an award for the technology, the guys who built it will be the ones receiving it.
But, for public discussion, I don't think it's entirely unreasonable to say that if Cameron envisioned it, paid for it, pioneered its use, and made it become more than a technology testbed ... well, he may have invented it in the broadest sense of the word. He didn't build it, but maybe he did invent it.
Actually, it's my understanding they still use the model-makers and old school techniques, they just integrate them with the digital stuff.
I seem to recall seeing something that one of the big CG houses (Pixar?) actually had physical skeleton models to let the old-school animators move the wireframe since they got much more realistic results.
I think they actually use hybrid systems to really good effect.
Are there any non weird combinations involving cosplay?
I mean, sure, hot girls with blue hair and fake swords is kinda sexy and all ... but, it's still weird.
If Cameron came up with the idea and had someone build it for him, I'd say you could argue he invented it.
He may not have been the one doing the technical details, but if it's his concept developed on his dime ... well, my past employers own the works I did for them, so why not in this case?
I guess it depends on how you define abstinence, really. :-P
People like he damnedest things.
Bah, you can't disavow episode 1 -- how else can you vent spleen at Jar Jar Binks?
Like it or not, it happened. :-P
You gotta be kidding me ... this story has been up for over an hour, and nobody has said ... "begun, the cloud war has".
I assumed that was the whole purpose of the title? :-P Or is everyone else disavowing knowledge of Episodes 2&3. ;-)
I love how he politely accepts internet weirdness and at the same time plugs his books.
Glad to see he's actually finding the whole thing humorous -- thanks for the info.
There isn't really such things as "safe" sex, but "safer" sex. Meaning "less risky", but not "risk free". If you come in contact with someone else, there's always a risk.
Full body latex and a gas mask might get you "safe sex" though. Of course, that's not for everyone. :-P
Well, Scotland and Wales are in the UK -- I know for sure I've heard many a Scotsman/sheep joke.
Never really been sure what the Welsh are saying though -- there could be sheep involved. It's hard to tell.
Oh, aye! There's nothing like walking about in a kilt in 3 degrees celcius to keep the boys nicely aired out and cool. Trust me, I've done it.
On a really windy day your buttocks can get a wee bit chilled -- though your sporran keeps the front of the kilt in place and held down. Though, on a boat deck, I once gave some German tourists more than they bargained for. ;-)
Or wanted the small amount of cash that researchers usually offer for such things. You know, beer money.
I think next to mice/rats, college students are likely the most studied population of any organism. :-P
You know, I've always wondered what Chuck Norris thinks about being an internet meme.
I mean, what if it makes him angry? Then we're all screwed! :-P
Except Microsoft has already built this shiny new hardware, and scaled up their production so that it will be widely available at consumer prices.
Why on Earth would they start from scratch to build their own? I can see why they'd want to have a bounty to be able to operate this sucker.
Possibly money -- the XBox hardware was a loss leader for the first several years. They sold it at a loss to encourage people to buy the games. This might be something in the same boat -- what they sell it for doesn't recoup their costs.
Ah, but the safeguards will be digital. Which means they can invoke the DMCA to say that you're violating federal law by defeating their safeguards, and they will issue a cease and desist. And, they're saying if they have to, they'll keep up the arms race to make it harder/more illegal to reverse engineer this.
Nowadays, just by saying "this is a digital lock, you are not allowed to open it", you can get an awful lot of legal clout to back you. :(
It can be two things. It can be insightful without being literal.
The other logical conclusion being that the amount of sweaty, nasty sex they'll be having with a college co-ed while on spring break is, in all likelihood, vastly overestimated.
They'll get loaded with their buddies, see some girl flash her boobs, and that's about it. Then they'll get home and realize they dumped their girlfriends for nothing.
OK, so TFA (and even TFS) says my math is wrong ... but, it's all mumbo-jumb numbers anyway.
Mine are just as valid. ;-)
RIAA. Lawyers. Legislation which has been purchased to be in their favor.
When you can equate file-sharing with huge-scale counterfeiting and theft, you can make it look like on paper she denied the industry of millions and millions of revenue.
I believe the statutory damages are $275K/song or so, so for the six songs ...
Actually, they haven't done that.
What they've done is intentionally sold more than they actually have in the hopes that most people will never need it. If you cut too deeply into their profit margins, they'll change the rules so you get less (which is why we've been seeing bandwidth caps get introduced).
You're paying them to maintain the status quo and try to milk it for all it's worth. Your version of it is a little more idealistic and assumes that they're in the business of providing as much bandwidth as people want -- they're really in the bandwidth of selling more than they actually have. There's no profit to be had in investing in capacity beyond certain levels.
Think of it as more of a pyramid scheme that trying to meet the capacity they market. They will always win, and they will just simply change the rules in their favor. If someone forced them to upgrade their networks, they'd just add a line-item to your bill.
Remember, they control the rules of the game. There is no Queen on the table, and you can't win.
From the bottom, it seems like in some comapnies the execs get bonuses no matter what since they stack the deck in their favor. It's like elected officials voting themselves a raise every year.
At the 'C' level, it seems like they figure they're entitled to $50 million in options just for showing up and trying -- actual performance of the company doesn't seem to matter.
But, maybe I'm cynical.
You would need to get a change at the SEC level for that, and you would never get it done.
As I understand it, the stock options and bonuses given to executives are accounted different for than, say, the combined vacation balance of the entire company.
The vacation balances are a line item in the financial statement as a liability. Even if the executives receive more value in stock options than the entire vacation balance of the company ... the vacation balance is more of a big deal because they have to be stated on the balance sheet.
The executive stock options and bonuses is funny money that comes from someplace else, so according to GAAP, they're not tracked the same way. Short of convincing the entire business world that execs should give up their perks in order to not be siphoning off shareholder value for their own benefit since it's not handled the same way.
(Anybody who is more knowledgeable about this please feel to correct me -- this is a summary of something that was explained to me several years ago based on an actual scenario. I'm perfectly willing to accept that I've got it wrong or missed some of the nuance.)
That's a stunningly deep analysis of information sharing/leakage between two parties as inferred by an outside observer in response to a joke about my perception of Facebook being more or less the functional equivalent of the high-school rumor game.
Bravo, sir. :-P