I don't think that's right. Is a hard drive with 100 copies of a song more valuable than a hard drive with one copy of that song? I would say no, in which case the only value the additional copies can have is zero.
Interesting point.
If a runaway script fills your drive with the same song a hundred times each additional copy would not have value. But a hundred copies of a song on a hundred different people's hard drives seems to make each copy as valuable as the first. (given similar taste in music).
But the main point here, is that if someone goes to the trouble of copying a song, clearly the copy has value to that person. That people intentionally spend time doing something is a dead giveaway that they value the result.
There is quite a difference between sending porn thru a hacked wifi (in reality probably a totally unsecured wifi) and listing to a couple seconds of unencrypted wifi traffic as you drive down the street.
You also have to remember that the FCC said there was no evidence that what Google did was illegal. So that pretty much puts the lie to your claim that Google got off because they were Google. They got off because it wasn't a violation of law. Hacking someones internet is a violation of law. So is theft of services.
Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to save money and maximize return on their investments. Therefore it is the right thing to do. More profits flow to share holders, who pay taxes on their earnings, at a higher rate than the corporation does.
Yes, he could have set a flag and not gathered any payload, just beacons and mac addresses. But Engineer Doe decided not to do this.
Kismet does not capture packet payloads when the encrypted flag is set on. There is a switch to turn off all payload capture. Further, any SSL sessions would be captured in their encrypted state even when the router was un-encrypted. Nothing was able to be gleaned in that data either. No bank passwords.
That they got any email addresses or content is amazing. I suppose a lot of people were using pop 3 in those days.
On the list of the 10 most popular target URLs that were able be extracted in a test run in Arizona was some Weather-Bug server.
Full underacted text (other than the name of Engineer Doe, is available here.
It was clearly a tiny project that got little oversight, and less review. For the NYT to say it was "approved" is quite beyond the facts. Collecting wifi access point locations was approved. But Engineer Doe went off the reservation and did way more than that.
I downloaded it the other day. Its available on Scribd. Its telling that this NYT hack fails to give the source link, and the more you read it the clearer it becomes that nobody really knew what Engineer Doe was up to, and even he didn't find any convincing use for the data.
It confirms no such thing. In fact the entire summary is out of touch with what was in the FCC report. The entire thing is on line, you can read it for yourself. The FCC dropped the whole thing because there is no clear evidence that google violated any law.
GO READ THE FCC REPORT YOURSELF instead of relying on a biased hack at the NYT to put their own spin on it.
There was never any intent do use this data, it was merely one engineer's pipe dream to do so. And the fact that he MUCH LATER circulated memos that stated he was capturing freely available encrypted traffic to 7 people does not mean they were actually aware of precisely what that meant.
The only ones to blame, are not Microsoft who followed the tax laws, but the poltiicians who failed to REWRITE the tax laws such that MS and other corporations would have to pay on all their income (since they reside in washington).
Failed to REWRITE the tax laws?
I see you are totally unfamiliar with Washington State tax policy.
The state has bent over backwards giving concession after concession to Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, to keep them from moving out of state lock stock and barrel. Not only have the rewritten the tax laws, they have done so repeatedly and done so in a manor that these companies qualify for special exemptions, carefully worded so as not to call attention, but exemptions that realistically can only be taken advantage of by these big companies.
I am appalled that Microsoft is to blame for the current state of our university.
Oh come off it. Why not take a few government and economics classes while you are there, and actually learn something about how society and business works.
Microsoft does what EVERY company does, and they are far from the worst offenders. Take a look at Boeing some day with regard to all the special concessions they have extracted from Washington state over the years merely by raising the threat of moving to Kansas. When those threats didn't seem to be working, they actually moved their corporate headquarters to Chicago, and the State caved in on more tax breaks.
It should come as no surprise that Nevada has found ways to attract business with similar offerings. And its no surprise that companies take advantage of it, they would be foolish not to do so.
Washington state has been living beyond its means for decades, based on the steadily increasing tax revenue from employment. When the economy turned down, they tap was turned off, and the over spending became very obvious. Its Not Microsoft's fault. Its not Boeing's fault. Its an overgrown state government, almost always incompetent, often corrupt, and far too long Democrat run.
are like the wolves amongst you right-handed sheep, right!!!!???
I'm not ENTIRELY convinced, what about situations where it is advantageous for people to have opposite handedness for optimal cooperation? There seems to be a built-in assumption here that different-handed assortments of people will always have more problems working together. I'm not sure there's a practical way to test this as a general thing though.
I agree, the theory is weak.
Using sports as a model for why handed-ness exists is putting the cart before the horse. That Baseball was able to capitalize on left handed pitchers throwing to much more common right handed hitters is a rather late innovation in the annals of human endeavor.
Further, very few tools existed in historical times where handedness mattered at all. A wrench or a hammer or a spear have no handedness. Only much later were tools invented to meet the needs of the majority or users, which is why there was a tendency to put controls on power tools on the right.
The whole thesis mistakes cause for effect, suggesting tools and games we invented had something to do with what made us what we are. Whether our ancestors threw the spear, or picked the berry right or left handed couldn't have mattered at all.
I'm sorry, but your view on this is entirely wrong, and totally out of keeping with the facts. Go read the link I posted.
There was never even a pretense of benefit to society. It was always about preserving a revenue stream (and to a lesser extent, control of undesirable content.) It was always about granting the authors the ability to sell copies of their work and excluding others from doing so for a certain period of time.
That may still be a desirable goal. The subject is open to debate. But its getting in the way of any benefit to society.
Benefit to society was a sop, thrown to the public as an excuse when granting monopoly rights on books to the original publishers.
The grant of the copy monopoly was created in order to jumpstart a culture.
Not really.
Copyright was ALWAYS about protecting a stream of income for the author/creator/publisher. Even before it was codified into law, it was always about protecting a stream of income, and authors were not even protected at first. Only printers.
Jumpstarting a culture was a concept that never existed until recent times (in fact, I think you made it up), because people always had a culture. They lived it every day, and it was a communal culture, shared by stories and legend, written or oral.
The work represented by the bits has value. Any particular copy of them does not.
Clearly any particular copy of them does hold value, or there would only be one copy. Someone took the time to make that additional copy. They did so because the second copy would have value. In fact it would have the same value as the first copy.
To suggest otherwise is to suggest mindless copying takes place almost at random and by accident.
but now they can make sharing a digital copy just as inconvenient as sharing a physical one. All by the magic of near field communication, you'll have to actually meet up with the person to gift it.
Of course just wait until the content cartels get wind of this!
Way to Not read the article.
Email gifting is also covered in the patent. (As if Apple ever thought that up first).
Prior to the photocopy machine, it wasn't trivial. With the advent of scan-to-pdf, its even easier today.
Simply stating that copyright is meaningful because someone has a need, does hand waive away the elephant in the room that the GP was stating: Copyright of anything that can take digital form is doomed to failure.
The GP stated, quite insightfully, that a new societal concept is needed, one where authors and composers re-think the way they make their money.
If apple can solve this simplicity issue, then it bodes well for the industry and the consumer.
Actually, this issue can't be solved by Apple. All it can do is monopolize their proprietary solution, and tie you even tighter to their ecosystem. As long as Apple has to agree that you own a book or a song, you have no ownership. (Apple won't be around for ever). Ownership of digital media is an illusion. You really only have a book keeping entry on an Apple computer. Nothing more. Same for a Barns & Noble ebook. Its just an entry in a computer database.
A real solution for digital ownership would necessarily involve some form media encrypted with an owners key, which would be replaced when the media changed ownership. Think PGP encrypted email. That way, when you gift it to me, you encrypt it with my key, and re-write or erase your copy. But because its digital, any such scheme could eventually be hacked, perhaps as simply as restoring a backed up copy. This might not matter, because the effort involved in mass duplication with millions of users keys would be equivalent to photocopying books - possible but not practical. But until you replace all viewing technology, simply stripping the encryption would get us right back to the current situation.
No one has come up with any generic method that of media ownership transfer that does not require some third party to agree that you own it in the first place. There is no surprise here, the same exists for all major purchases in the physical world, Property Deeds, car titles. Only inexpensive items are consigned to mere "possession rules" in the physical rules.
It seems a toss-up whether such a system could be developed that allows third-party-free gifting and transfers of digital media before the whole concept of copyright collapses of its own weight.
copying a bunch of ones and zeros that have no inherent value
I'm confused. Why would anyone copy a collection of ones and zeros that had no value? Doesn't the very act of copying them prove that there is an inherent value in the mind of the person making the copy?
Reading the story you find that the NFC part of this is merely an optional part of a much broader patent-grab. Other options include email, which is already well established as a gifting mechanism.
The real attempt here is to monopolize a method of transferring licensed media from one person to another. Of course, they require a server to be involved, to validate that the gifted media is removed from one person's account as it is added to another. Nook already had lending of ebooks, and by extension gifting, other than the book publishers would not allow Barnes and Noble to allow gifting, continuing (by edict) to enforce control their property rights after the first sale.
Its questionable whether Apple will be more successful at prying IP holders hands free of this post-sale control than was B&N. Especially with the DOJ looking into their collusion with publishers.
Translating text and manuals to Australian isn't free.
Neither is appearing in Australian Court when some customer decides to sue you, or the Australian government decides to pull you through some local knot hole of product liability that is over the top when compared to what is required in the US.
Because of different Taxing regulations, the software may have sold for that much higher if it was developed in Australia,
As for the strength of the Australian dollar, that is purely a rubbish argument, because US companies typically price their software in US dollars, and let the exchange rate take care of itself.
$1600 more sounds like over kill, (depending on what percentage of list price it was). However, because of different Taxing regulations, the software may have sold for that much higher if it was developed in Australia, and the software manufacturers may be responsible for such tax difference. Australia has a GST tax. Just figuring out if you are liable for this will cost you a bundle. Collecting it and dealing with it from Chicago will cost you more in terms of staff time, and hiring work done in Australia.
It could easily be that the cost of doing business for high end software could amount to a pile of money.
This is the new "agile"' methodology. There is no design or validation, just furious coding off a prioritized feature list and "code reviews" which amount to little more than some other programmer skimming a check-in and signing off.
And that s quite sufficient for an in-house tool. They were not selling street view cars, they were simply collecting their own data, which they never intended to sell.
This is not a development system for launching rockets or writing pay checks. Its not a deliverable in a contract. Its strictly an in-house lash-up where one guy decided to exceed his mandate.
When your manager asks you to write a quick program to find all the Ford Truck owners that Work in Building B by scanning the parking tag database, you do it the fastest way possible. You don't start with any more of a requirements statement that your boss gave you, you don't send your grep script out for a third party review, you don't run it by legal, you don't hold design meetings, and write memos, because the friggin Black Ford Ranger truck is LEAKING GAS RIGHT NOW, and the police won't tell you who owns it from its license plate number without a subpoena.
Not every project is a big production. This whole wifi project was a pimple on street view's neck, so that google didn't have to pay Skyhook for its database. It was a cheap expedient, and it was a perfect single engineer project or at most a couple guys to kick the code around an two or three hardware guys to assemble the wifi receiver packaging.
No. You do not get to dismiss the KEY sentence in the paragraph. Just NO.
Close contact with someone's used tissue MIGHT transmit it, and maybe being coughed on. But the passenger had no such coughing symptoms.
This is not some horrible disease that spreads like wildfile. The reaction was defiantly an over-reaction based on their own hands off (2000 mile away) diagnosis from third hand information. They violated their own protocols.
If there wasn't a threat why were crews brought in, why were they not letting people off the plane? Ask yourself these kind of things before ever posting again. Be sure to log in first.
Apparently you've never heard of swatting and the tendency in the US of over-reacting to any simple event.
But the answer was that there wasn't a threat. (Bed bug bites, while unsightly and disgusting are not a threat.)
Nor would real Monkey pox be that contagious requiring full quarantine. It is not spread by casual contact. Even under their own protocol, it was an over-reaction.
Now High frame rate on a monitor or lcd screen may not be exactly the same process as a frame of film being totally replace 48 times a second, but its pretty close. I game on systems that do a consistent 160fps and I feel like Grandpappy Amos compared to some of the frame rates of the rigs run by young gamers.
People are used to high frame rates. Its not like 3D where it actually makes some people feel sick.
As for the GP stating "Every time I see a high fps recording of something the motion looks like it's going to fast.", I don't see that at all. It just looks normal, it doesn't look faster at all. Its just smooth and realistic.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't think that's right. Is a hard drive with 100 copies of a song more valuable than a hard drive with one copy of that song? I would say no, in which case the only value the additional copies can have is zero.
Interesting point.
If a runaway script fills your drive with the same song a hundred times each additional copy would not have value.
But a hundred copies of a song on a hundred different people's hard drives seems to make each copy as valuable as the first.
(given similar taste in music).
But the main point here, is that if someone goes to the trouble of copying a song, clearly the copy has value to that person.
That people intentionally spend time doing something is a dead giveaway that they value the result.
The Pirate Party has a proposal out to eliminate penalties for private non commercial copying. But even they do not go to the extreme of claiming that the copies have no value.
There is quite a difference between sending porn thru a hacked wifi (in reality probably a totally unsecured wifi) and listing to a couple seconds of unencrypted wifi traffic as you drive down the street.
You also have to remember that the FCC said there was no evidence that what Google did was illegal. So that pretty much puts the lie to your claim that Google got off because they were Google. They got off because it wasn't a violation of law. Hacking someones internet is a violation of law. So is theft of services.
You're right of course, bad proof reading on my part.
The simplistic explanation for non baseball fans is here.
Well in this case it was both legal and ethical.
Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary responsibility to their share holders to save money and maximize return on their investments. Therefore it is the right thing to do. More profits flow to share holders, who pay taxes on their earnings, at a higher rate than the corporation does.
Yes, he could have set a flag and not gathered any payload, just beacons and mac addresses. But Engineer Doe decided not to do this.
Kismet does not capture packet payloads when the encrypted flag is set on. There is a switch to turn off all payload capture.
Further, any SSL sessions would be captured in their encrypted state even when the router was un-encrypted. Nothing was able to
be gleaned in that data either. No bank passwords.
That they got any email addresses or content is amazing. I suppose a lot of people were using pop 3 in those days.
On the list of the 10 most popular target URLs that were able be extracted in a test run in Arizona was some Weather-Bug server.
Full underacted text (other than the name of Engineer Doe, is available here.
It was clearly a tiny project that got little oversight, and less review. For the NYT to say it was "approved" is quite beyond the facts. Collecting wifi access point locations was approved. But Engineer Doe went off the reservation and did way more than that.
I downloaded it the other day. Its available on Scribd. Its telling that this NYT hack fails to give the source link, and the more you read it the clearer it becomes that nobody really knew what Engineer Doe was up to, and even he didn't find any convincing use for the data.
It confirms no such thing. In fact the entire summary is out of touch with what was in the FCC report.
The entire thing is on line, you can read it for yourself. The FCC dropped the whole thing because there is no clear evidence that google violated any law.
GO READ THE FCC REPORT YOURSELF
instead of relying on a biased hack at the NYT to put their own spin on it.
There was never any intent do use this data, it was merely one engineer's pipe dream to do so.
And the fact that he MUCH LATER circulated memos that stated he was capturing freely available encrypted traffic to 7 people
does not mean they were actually aware of precisely what that meant.
The only ones to blame, are not Microsoft who followed the tax laws, but the poltiicians who failed to REWRITE the tax laws such that MS and other corporations would have to pay on all their income (since they reside in washington).
Failed to REWRITE the tax laws?
I see you are totally unfamiliar with Washington State tax policy.
The state has bent over backwards giving concession after concession to Boeing, Microsoft, Starbucks, Amazon, to keep them from moving out of state lock stock and barrel. Not only have the rewritten the tax laws, they have done so repeatedly and done so in a manor that these companies qualify for special exemptions, carefully worded so as not to call attention, but exemptions that realistically can only be taken advantage of by these big companies.
See http://dor.wa.gov/content/findtaxesandrates/taxincentives/incentiveprograms.aspx for a partial list of highly preferential tax dodges.
Once passed, these tax breaks are never subjected to a vote again.
I am appalled that Microsoft is to blame for the current state of our university.
Oh come off it.
Why not take a few government and economics classes while you are there, and actually learn something about how society and business works.
Microsoft does what EVERY company does, and they are far from the worst offenders. Take a look at Boeing some day with regard to all the special concessions they have extracted from Washington state over the years merely by raising the threat of moving to Kansas. When those threats didn't seem to be working, they actually moved their corporate headquarters to Chicago, and the State caved in on more tax breaks.
It should come as no surprise that Nevada has found ways to attract business with similar offerings. And its no surprise that companies take advantage of it, they would be foolish not to do so.
Washington state has been living beyond its means for decades, based on the steadily increasing tax revenue from employment. When the economy turned down, they tap was turned off, and the over spending became very obvious. Its Not Microsoft's fault. Its not Boeing's fault. Its an overgrown state government, almost always incompetent, often corrupt, and far too long Democrat run.
And the reverse is also true, so If you had a point, I totally missed it.
are like the wolves amongst you right-handed sheep, right!!!!???
I'm not ENTIRELY convinced, what about situations where it is advantageous for people to have opposite handedness for optimal cooperation? There seems to be a built-in assumption here that different-handed assortments of people will always have more problems working together. I'm not sure there's a practical way to test this as a general thing though.
I agree, the theory is weak.
Using sports as a model for why handed-ness exists is putting the cart before the horse. That Baseball was able to capitalize on left handed pitchers throwing to much more common right handed hitters is a rather late innovation in the annals of human endeavor.
Further, very few tools existed in historical times where handedness mattered at all. A wrench or a hammer or a spear have no handedness. Only much later were tools invented to meet the needs of the majority or users, which is why there was a tendency to put controls on power tools on the right.
The whole thesis mistakes cause for effect, suggesting tools and games we invented had something to do with what made us what we are. Whether our ancestors threw the spear, or picked the berry right or left handed couldn't have mattered at all.
I'm sorry, but your view on this is entirely wrong, and totally out of keeping with the facts.
Go read the link I posted.
There was never even a pretense of benefit to society. It was always about preserving a revenue stream (and to a lesser extent, control of undesirable content.) It was always about granting the authors the ability to sell copies of their work and excluding others from doing so for a certain period of time.
That may still be a desirable goal. The subject is open to debate. But its getting in the way of any benefit to society.
Benefit to society was a sop, thrown to the public as an excuse when granting monopoly rights on books to the original publishers.
The grant of the copy monopoly was created in order to jumpstart a culture.
Not really.
Copyright was ALWAYS about protecting a stream of income for the author/creator/publisher. Even before it was codified into law, it was always about protecting a stream of income, and authors were not even protected at first. Only printers.
Jumpstarting a culture was a concept that never existed until recent times (in fact, I think you made it up), because people always had a culture. They lived it every day, and it was a communal culture, shared by stories and legend, written or oral.
The work represented by the bits has value. Any particular copy of them does not.
Clearly any particular copy of them does hold value, or there would only be one copy. Someone took the time to make that additional copy. They did so because the second copy would have value. In fact it would have the same value as the first copy.
To suggest otherwise is to suggest mindless copying takes place almost at random and by accident.
but now they can make sharing a digital copy just as inconvenient as sharing a physical one. All by the magic of near field communication, you'll have to actually meet up with the person to gift it.
Of course just wait until the content cartels get wind of this!
Way to Not read the article.
Email gifting is also covered in the patent. (As if Apple ever thought that up first).
Consider Sheet music. It's trivial reprint this.
Prior to the photocopy machine, it wasn't trivial. With the advent of scan-to-pdf, its even easier today.
Simply stating that copyright is meaningful because someone has a need, does hand waive away the elephant in the room that the GP was stating: Copyright of anything that can take digital form is doomed to failure.
The GP stated, quite insightfully, that a new societal concept is needed, one where authors and composers re-think the way they make their money.
If apple can solve this simplicity issue, then it bodes well for the industry and the consumer.
Actually, this issue can't be solved by Apple. All it can do is monopolize their proprietary solution, and tie you even tighter to their ecosystem. As long as Apple has to agree that you own a book or a song, you have no ownership. (Apple won't be around for ever). Ownership of digital media is an illusion. You really only have a book keeping entry on an Apple computer. Nothing more. Same for a Barns & Noble ebook. Its just an entry in a computer database.
A real solution for digital ownership would necessarily involve some form media encrypted with an owners key, which would be replaced when the media changed ownership. Think PGP encrypted email. That way, when you gift it to me, you encrypt it with my key, and re-write or erase your copy. But because its digital, any such scheme could eventually be hacked, perhaps as simply as restoring a backed up copy. This might not matter, because the effort involved in mass duplication with millions of users keys would be equivalent to photocopying books - possible but not practical. But until you replace all viewing technology, simply stripping the encryption would get us right back to the current situation.
No one has come up with any generic method that of media ownership transfer that does not require some third party to agree that you own it in the first place. There is no surprise here, the same exists for all major purchases in the physical world, Property Deeds, car titles. Only inexpensive items are consigned to mere "possession rules" in the physical rules.
It seems a toss-up whether such a system could be developed that allows third-party-free gifting and transfers of digital media before the whole concept of copyright collapses of its own weight.
copying a bunch of ones and zeros that have no inherent value
I'm confused. Why would anyone copy a collection of ones and zeros that had no value?
Doesn't the very act of copying them prove that there is an inherent value in the mind of the person making the copy?
Reading the story you find that the NFC part of this is merely an optional part of a much broader patent-grab. Other options include email, which is already well established as a gifting mechanism.
The real attempt here is to monopolize a method of transferring licensed media from one person to another. Of course, they require a server to be involved, to validate that the gifted media is removed from one person's account as it is added to another. Nook already had lending of ebooks, and by extension gifting, other than the book publishers would not allow Barnes and Noble to allow gifting, continuing (by edict) to enforce control their property rights after the first sale.
Its questionable whether Apple will be more successful at prying IP holders hands free of this post-sale control than was B&N. Especially with the DOJ looking into their collusion with publishers.
Translating text and manuals to Australian isn't free.
Neither is appearing in Australian Court when some customer decides to sue you, or the Australian government decides to pull you through some local knot hole of product liability that is over the top when compared to what is required in the US.
Because of different Taxing regulations, the software may have sold for that much higher if it was developed in Australia,
As for the strength of the Australian dollar, that is purely a rubbish argument, because US companies typically price their software in US dollars, and let the exchange rate take care of itself.
$1600 more sounds like over kill, (depending on what percentage of list price it was). However, because of different Taxing regulations, the software may have sold for that much higher if it was developed in Australia, and the software manufacturers may be responsible for such tax difference. Australia has a GST tax. Just figuring out if you are liable for this will cost you a bundle. Collecting it and dealing with it from Chicago will cost you more in terms of staff time, and hiring work done in Australia.
It could easily be that the cost of doing business for high end software could amount to a pile of money.
This is the new "agile"' methodology. There is no design or validation, just furious coding off a prioritized feature list and "code reviews" which amount to little more than some other programmer skimming a check-in and signing off.
And that s quite sufficient for an in-house tool. They were not selling street view cars, they were simply collecting their own data, which they never intended to sell.
This is not a development system for launching rockets or writing pay checks. Its not a deliverable in a contract. Its strictly an in-house lash-up where one guy decided to exceed his mandate.
When your manager asks you to write a quick program to find all the Ford Truck owners that Work in Building B by scanning the parking tag database, you do it the fastest way possible. You don't start with any more of a requirements statement that your boss gave you, you don't send your grep script out for a third party review, you don't run it by legal, you don't hold design meetings, and write memos, because the friggin Black Ford Ranger truck is LEAKING GAS RIGHT NOW, and the police won't tell you who owns it from its license plate number without a subpoena.
Not every project is a big production. This whole wifi project was a pimple on street view's neck, so that google didn't have to pay Skyhook for its database. It was a cheap expedient, and it was a perfect single engineer project or at most a couple guys to kick the code around an two or three hardware guys to assemble the wifi receiver packaging.
Despite the last sentence?
No.
You do not get to dismiss the KEY sentence in the paragraph. Just NO.
Close contact with someone's used tissue MIGHT transmit it, and maybe being coughed on. But the passenger had no such coughing symptoms.
This is not some horrible disease that spreads like wildfile. The reaction was defiantly an over-reaction based on their own hands off (2000 mile away) diagnosis from third hand information. They violated their own protocols.
If there wasn't a threat why were crews brought in, why were they not letting people off the plane? Ask yourself these kind of things before ever posting again. Be sure to log in first.
Apparently you've never heard of swatting and the tendency in the US of over-reacting to any simple event.
But the answer was that there wasn't a threat. (Bed bug bites, while unsightly and disgusting are not a threat.)
Nor would real Monkey pox be that contagious requiring full quarantine. It is not spread by casual contact. Even under their own protocol, it was an over-reaction.
Exactly.
Now High frame rate on a monitor or lcd screen may not be exactly the same process as a frame of film being totally replace 48 times a second, but its pretty close. I game on systems that do a consistent 160fps and I feel like Grandpappy Amos compared to some of the frame rates of the rigs run by young gamers.
People are used to high frame rates. Its not like 3D where it actually makes some people feel sick.
As for the GP stating "Every time I see a high fps recording of something the motion looks like it's going to fast.", I don't see that at all. It just looks normal, it doesn't look faster at all. Its just smooth and realistic.