So which frames are they cutting, and do they plan to cut the audio too?
I would imagine the difference would be virtually unnoticeable if they cut out the first and/or last frames of each scene. Thing is, the number of scene changes varies significantly depending on the show, and the process could be difficult to automate (fast action could be mistaken for a scene change, and that's the last place you want to pull frames). Also, now that I think about it, this method probably won't get 30 seconds of extra time per 30 minute show.
To get 30 seconds out of a 30 minute show (which is really only 22 minutes long plus commercials), you have to remove one out of every 44 frames. By timing them right, it shouldn't be noticeable in most shows. The audio is analog, so it should squash without a noticeable loss in quality. As much as I hate the principle of this thing, I don't think we can complain on grounds of it decreasing the audio/video quality of our shows.
Every nutbar and goof that comes up with a "free energy" miracle device would demand equal and thorough investigation to legitimise his/her "discovery".
Thorough investigation may be appropriate in some cases. Is it really a good idea to slam the door on free energy just because we have theorems that say it can't happen? Just because we accept the laws of entropy doesn't mean there isn't an infintesimal chance they could be proven wrong. People once thought the earth was flat.
The USPTO didn't say "absolutely no perpetual motion patents," they just imposed an extra requirement to weed out the fakes; a candidate invention must run for a year in a room at the patent office with no external power source (or something to that effect). Only then can the invention be considered worthy of further investigation.
To my knowledge, nobody has been confident enough in their perpetual motion machine to put it past the USPTO's preliminary test. However, if a machine passed, surely it would be worthy of at least some further investigation.
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe the Jasker machine is anything but a hoax, but at the same time, I don't think we should categorically dismiss all perpetual motion machines. It is infintesimally probable, yet still possible, that one could be built. But no way should Reuter's be covering any perpetual motion machine that hasn't passed the USPTO's preliminary test.
Does anyone have any specific information about this mechanism? A previous/. story or an M$ PR perhaps?
If it is already possible to enable this restriction, M$'s next step may well be to enable it by default. Obviously it will be easier for them to sneak this kind of control in gradually. Will Joe Average even notice the change? Maybe not, because by then they'll already be so locked in to their M$ apps.
I think this is an important issue, and I agree with alext's post, that the parent of this post should be modded up!
Slashdot Mirror
I would imagine the difference would be virtually unnoticeable if they cut out the first and/or last frames of each scene. Thing is, the number of scene changes varies significantly depending on the show, and the process could be difficult to automate (fast action could be mistaken for a scene change, and that's the last place you want to pull frames). Also, now that I think about it, this method probably won't get 30 seconds of extra time per 30 minute show.
To get 30 seconds out of a 30 minute show (which is really only 22 minutes long plus commercials), you have to remove one out of every 44 frames. By timing them right, it shouldn't be noticeable in most shows. The audio is analog, so it should squash without a noticeable loss in quality. As much as I hate the principle of this thing, I don't think we can complain on grounds of it decreasing the audio/video quality of our shows.
Thorough investigation may be appropriate in some cases. Is it really a good idea to slam the door on free energy just because we have theorems that say it can't happen? Just because we accept the laws of entropy doesn't mean there isn't an infintesimal chance they could be proven wrong. People once thought the earth was flat.
The USPTO didn't say "absolutely no perpetual motion patents," they just imposed an extra requirement to weed out the fakes; a candidate invention must run for a year in a room at the patent office with no external power source (or something to that effect). Only then can the invention be considered worthy of further investigation.
To my knowledge, nobody has been confident enough in their perpetual motion machine to put it past the USPTO's preliminary test. However, if a machine passed, surely it would be worthy of at least some further investigation.
Don't get me wrong; I don't believe the Jasker machine is anything but a hoax, but at the same time, I don't think we should categorically dismiss all perpetual motion machines. It is infintesimally probable, yet still possible, that one could be built. But no way should Reuter's be covering any perpetual motion machine that hasn't passed the USPTO's preliminary test.
If it is already possible to enable this restriction, M$'s next step may well be to enable it by default. Obviously it will be easier for them to sneak this kind of control in gradually. Will Joe Average even notice the change? Maybe not, because by then they'll already be so locked in to their M$ apps.
I think this is an important issue, and I agree with alext's post, that the parent of this post should be modded up!
MSNBC now has an article up, for those of you looking for more news about this story (should be immune to the /. effect too).