I don't think this is geared toward parts of the world where birth control is routinely available and is generally reliable. Rather, it's aimed at 3rd world countries where contraception is either unavailable or "unmanly" (thus simply isn't done), yet the population growth is out of control. Getting a good chunk of the young virile males to agree to getting their balls zapped a couple times a year could do a lot toward slowing population growth in those areas.
Might also be useful for teenagers whose "stop and think" node hasn't activated yet.
So now I'll be able to tell which files are "official" with DRM, FBI warning, unskippable trailers, and other nonsense intact, and which are cleaned up and ready to watch. All thanks to this Content ID scheme!!
I expect the data is hard to get, other than by indirect means like trying to find and trigger the matching neurons, at least so long as one expects to have an intact eyeball at the end of the study:)
Now that you mention it, I remember that one too, because I knew people who thought it sounded like a good thing to do!
But it wasn't the thing I was talking about -- the one I referenced actually explained what was going on (it was something akin the the spinning disk trick some other replies have mentioned) and why it fooled your eyes into "seeing colour".
My youtube filcher is not working at the moment but I'll try to get it again tomorrow, thanks for looking it up. From someone else's description this does indeed sound like the family the "fake colour" effect came from.
Don't know, but how it appeared was as a rectangular patch of colour surrounded by a normal black-and-white background. As far as I recall it had something to do with fooling the TV into displaying something funky which appeared to be colour to the eye. The colour part of the image was very grainy compared to the B/W, a lot like 'no signal' static.
A while back I was trying to make a brown logo for a client's website. The original was a scanned business card, and the logo thereon was a middling brown colour.
I found that no matter how I beat on it, I could not make the scanned image be "brown". At best it was a sort of orangey-purple. I realise most people can't see the difference, but I can (I seem to be one of the four-colour freaks; it runs in my family), and it annoyed me no end.
HTML's nearest colour is "milk chocolate" (#780000) but if you look at it closely, it really isn't.
Seems to me that a better approximation should be achievable. Maybe with this technology??
One reason I still use a CRT (and only a ViewSonic for real work) is because I've yet to see an LCD that displayed realworld colour, at least sufficient to please my eye. Maybe this will fix the problem.
At any rate, while counting colours is a bunch of nonsense, improving the accuracy of the spectrum displayed is not.
Agreed -- at worst it can't hurt, and may reduce the number of ugly hacks needed.
On that note, I'm wondering if it will fix the problem that "brown" on a computer screen isn't brown at all (indeed, I found a true brown could not be achieved), but rather is a sort of muddied orangey-purple.
Back in the 1960s there was an ad that did some trick that caused a black-and-white television to display what the eye perceived as colour. There was an explanation as to how it was achieved but lo these many decades later I have no recollection what it was (nor what the ad was for, either). If I hadn't seen it myself, I'd not believe it could be done.
Yes, I know how much it costs, and I also know how much of that is graft and waste -- about 80% on average, per my experience in the industry. I have personally seen TV and films made for 10-20% of the typical budget -- solely because all the cost was coming out of the producer's own pocket, instead of being funded by a studio.
If this stuff was priced where it really should be, then maybe "Hollywood accounting" wouldn't be such a miracle of creative bookkeeping, because there wouldn't be so much money available to waste and embezzle in the first place.
I've discovered that for DVDs, I'll readily pay about $1/hour for TV that I really want to collect and save, or about $8 for a good movie that I'll watch more than once, without thinking too much about it. (Somewhat less for ephemeral stuff, but I seldom buy that at all anyway.)
But if I have to spend my time to download it, muck about with burning it to DVD if I want to save it, etc, then I expect to pay a small fraction as much, because I've done a good part of the distribution work for them, and ALL of the unit manufacturing work.
Or do they expect me to work for free?? See, that goes both ways...
Since you asked, I've collected over 17,000 fonts at last count. Yeah, I'm a bit of a font freak.:)
But my websites all use either 'default' or Arial, in the name of simple legibility. Since I can't dictate the viewer's hardware, software, and settings, it makes no sense to try to dictate the font, either.
It's not like print media, where every copy looks the same no matter how the reader handles it. (Well, maybe not after he uses it in the bottom of the birdcage:)
But it eventually goes back into the system too, mainly as waste heat. Or is there some part of the law of conservation of energy that doesn't work on Planet Earth?
And whose money did the gov't use to make those things??
How much more could have been made if the 70% overhead that it takes to run the gov't (per the figures I've seen) would have ALL gone into said project, rather than into running the part of the gov't that "made" those things?
This is hilarious, considering that the domestic turkey and the wild turkey, considered one of the wiliest and most difficult to bag of all game birds, are the SAME SPECIES. But if you catch some wild turkeys and feed them for a while, they'll act the same as domestic ones.
The difference seems to be whether they're used to being fed and protected, or are used to having to scrounge their own dinner and avoid predators on their own. Birds are very reactive, and if there's nothing to react to, they simply DON'T.
And it's not just turkeys. I've seen wild-born Canadian geese (another wily bird, as they go) become downright stupid (and impossible to drive off) once they discovered safety and a free lunch in a farmer's barnyard -- and these were mature geese, not youngsters or hatchlings.
Turkeys aren't so much stupid as intensely curious, to the exclusion of all common sense, and EXTREMELY trusting if they're not accustomed to avoiding hazards. Frex, if you show 'em a hose, they'll stick their beak up it, trying to see where the water comes from (then are perplexed that they can't breathe through it). And they'll follow around anyone who feeds 'em or even scratches their necks, cooing "I wuv 'oo" at 'em, with total trust.
As you say, it does make them good domestic livestock, easy to get along with and keep unstressed right up to slaugher.
[I think one could draw a parallel here, on one side the frontiersman, and on the other the city slicker.;) ]
Sounds like one of those stories farmers make up to confound city slickers... or that city slickers make up to explain the visions they have when they crank their tinfoil hats too tight.
My nearest neighbour has a ginormous wind turbine on his place. We're also in the migration path of several of the big western flocks. I've yet to see piles of dead sheep around the turbine, tho they graze and bed down in the area all the time. Of course, we have so much wind noise here, and the sheep make so much racket themselves, that you can barely hear the turbine anyway;)
And sometimes the wind gets the better of them. There's a hill above Livingston MT where the wind *routinely* blows at 100mph. Back around 1980 some joker decided this was a fine place for a wind farm, and erected several turbines.
Three days after construction was finished, the wind came along and took them out (the twisted carcasses wound up at the bottom of the hill).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think this is geared toward parts of the world where birth control is routinely available and is generally reliable. Rather, it's aimed at 3rd world countries where contraception is either unavailable or "unmanly" (thus simply isn't done), yet the population growth is out of control. Getting a good chunk of the young virile males to agree to getting their balls zapped a couple times a year could do a lot toward slowing population growth in those areas.
Might also be useful for teenagers whose "stop and think" node hasn't activated yet.
I had a similar thought, but along the lines of highlighting stuff that makes Kindle and Amazon look bad.
So now I'll be able to tell which files are "official" with DRM, FBI warning, unskippable trailers, and other nonsense intact, and which are cleaned up and ready to watch. All thanks to this Content ID scheme!!
I expect the data is hard to get, other than by indirect means like trying to find and trigger the matching neurons, at least so long as one expects to have an intact eyeball at the end of the study :)
An AC with a good memory brings up this reference:
http://www.museumofhoaxes.com/hoax/Hoaxipedia/Instant_Color_TV/
Now that you mention it, I remember that one too, because I knew people who thought it sounded like a good thing to do!
But it wasn't the thing I was talking about -- the one I referenced actually explained what was going on (it was something akin the the spinning disk trick some other replies have mentioned) and why it fooled your eyes into "seeing colour".
Has anyone studied exactly which trigger sequences create the perception of which colours? I imagine there must be some relationship there.
Couple other replies referenced the effect and link to some info. Interesting that it can also be done via a CRT. :)
My youtube filcher is not working at the moment but I'll try to get it again tomorrow, thanks for looking it up. From someone else's description this does indeed sound like the family the "fake colour" effect came from.
Ah, okay, that makes sense, and explains why it looked like it did.
Mind you this aired about 1965, so it's lucky ANYONE remembers it :)
Don't know, but how it appeared was as a rectangular patch of colour surrounded by a normal black-and-white background. As far as I recall it had something to do with fooling the TV into displaying something funky which appeared to be colour to the eye. The colour part of the image was very grainy compared to the B/W, a lot like 'no signal' static.
A while back I was trying to make a brown logo for a client's website. The original was a scanned business card, and the logo thereon was a middling brown colour.
I found that no matter how I beat on it, I could not make the scanned image be "brown". At best it was a sort of orangey-purple. I realise most people can't see the difference, but I can (I seem to be one of the four-colour freaks; it runs in my family), and it annoyed me no end.
HTML's nearest colour is "milk chocolate" (#780000) but if you look at it closely, it really isn't.
Seems to me that a better approximation should be achievable. Maybe with this technology??
One reason I still use a CRT (and only a ViewSonic for real work) is because I've yet to see an LCD that displayed realworld colour, at least sufficient to please my eye. Maybe this will fix the problem.
At any rate, while counting colours is a bunch of nonsense, improving the accuracy of the spectrum displayed is not.
Agreed -- at worst it can't hurt, and may reduce the number of ugly hacks needed.
On that note, I'm wondering if it will fix the problem that "brown" on a computer screen isn't brown at all (indeed, I found a true brown could not be achieved), but rather is a sort of muddied orangey-purple.
Back in the 1960s there was an ad that did some trick that caused a black-and-white television to display what the eye perceived as colour. There was an explanation as to how it was achieved but lo these many decades later I have no recollection what it was (nor what the ad was for, either). If I hadn't seen it myself, I'd not believe it could be done.
Yes, I know how much it costs, and I also know how much of that is graft and waste -- about 80% on average, per my experience in the industry. I have personally seen TV and films made for 10-20% of the typical budget -- solely because all the cost was coming out of the producer's own pocket, instead of being funded by a studio.
If this stuff was priced where it really should be, then maybe "Hollywood accounting" wouldn't be such a miracle of creative bookkeeping, because there wouldn't be so much money available to waste and embezzle in the first place.
I've discovered that for DVDs, I'll readily pay about $1/hour for TV that I really want to collect and save, or about $8 for a good movie that I'll watch more than once, without thinking too much about it. (Somewhat less for ephemeral stuff, but I seldom buy that at all anyway.)
But if I have to spend my time to download it, muck about with burning it to DVD if I want to save it, etc, then I expect to pay a small fraction as much, because I've done a good part of the distribution work for them, and ALL of the unit manufacturing work.
Or do they expect me to work for free?? See, that goes both ways...
True enough... Kinda scary, ain't it??
Looked to me like this new scheme charges a license fee based on actual user impressions, so it is charged per view rather than flat rate.
Of course if you run a popular amateur website, that could well wind up being more than what some obscure corporate website pays to use the same font.
Since you asked, I've collected over 17,000 fonts at last count. Yeah, I'm a bit of a font freak. :)
But my websites all use either 'default' or Arial, in the name of simple legibility. Since I can't dictate the viewer's hardware, software, and settings, it makes no sense to try to dictate the font, either.
It's not like print media, where every copy looks the same no matter how the reader handles it. (Well, maybe not after he uses it in the bottom of the birdcage :)
But it eventually goes back into the system too, mainly as waste heat. Or is there some part of the law of conservation of energy that doesn't work on Planet Earth?
If you give me all the power I can use in exchange, you can put the damned thing in my back yard.
That explains very well why despite using 30% less power than I did 10 years ago, my CA electric bill is now TEN TIMES as high as it was back then.
And whose money did the gov't use to make those things??
How much more could have been made if the 70% overhead that it takes to run the gov't (per the figures I've seen) would have ALL gone into said project, rather than into running the part of the gov't that "made" those things?
This is hilarious, considering that the domestic turkey and the wild turkey, considered one of the wiliest and most difficult to bag of all game birds, are the SAME SPECIES. But if you catch some wild turkeys and feed them for a while, they'll act the same as domestic ones.
The difference seems to be whether they're used to being fed and protected, or are used to having to scrounge their own dinner and avoid predators on their own. Birds are very reactive, and if there's nothing to react to, they simply DON'T.
And it's not just turkeys. I've seen wild-born Canadian geese (another wily bird, as they go) become downright stupid (and impossible to drive off) once they discovered safety and a free lunch in a farmer's barnyard -- and these were mature geese, not youngsters or hatchlings.
Turkeys aren't so much stupid as intensely curious, to the exclusion of all common sense, and EXTREMELY trusting if they're not accustomed to avoiding hazards. Frex, if you show 'em a hose, they'll stick their beak up it, trying to see where the water comes from (then are perplexed that they can't breathe through it). And they'll follow around anyone who feeds 'em or even scratches their necks, cooing "I wuv 'oo" at 'em, with total trust.
As you say, it does make them good domestic livestock, easy to get along with and keep unstressed right up to slaugher.
[I think one could draw a parallel here, on one side the frontiersman, and on the other the city slicker. ;) ]
Sounds like one of those stories farmers make up to confound city slickers... or that city slickers make up to explain the visions they have when they crank their tinfoil hats too tight.
My nearest neighbour has a ginormous wind turbine on his place. We're also in the migration path of several of the big western flocks. I've yet to see piles of dead sheep around the turbine, tho they graze and bed down in the area all the time. Of course, we have so much wind noise here, and the sheep make so much racket themselves, that you can barely hear the turbine anyway ;)
And sometimes the wind gets the better of them.
There's a hill above Livingston MT where the wind *routinely* blows at 100mph. Back around 1980 some joker decided this was a fine place for a wind farm, and erected several turbines.
Three days after construction was finished, the wind came along and took them out (the twisted carcasses wound up at the bottom of the hill).