Well 3D still doesn't work properly, and probably nothing will fix that while projecting on a flat screen.
But 48fps is simply smoother, and just as they are able to fake up 3D on films that were never shot that way, they will be able to digitally fake up with the extra frames between every 24fps frame and re-release all those old films in Astounding 48 FPS, New and Improved, Digitally Remastered, For a Limited Time Only....
Its a whole new industry, and they can sell us all copies of the disks we already bought once.
The wrath of the industry is usually tempered by box office figures.
Apparently, given the grousing these petulant bloggers post, the difference is easy enough to determine. I imagine action films would be much improved.
Seriously, what could be wrong with 48 fps? That it didn't flicker enough?
I read this story a few days ago and actually went searching for some samples but couldn't find any at that time, other than some silly animated combat scenes.
What I did find was a bunch of bloggers who have never produced anything in their life except whiny bitching without a single valid criticism that didn't amount to jealousy and NIH.
The solution is to have routers verify that the IP address blocks announced by others routers actually belong to their networks. One method, Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), uses a system of cryptographic certificates that verify an IP address block indeed belongs to a certain network.
Well duh! You would have thought this was the case already. Why are we worrying about state sponsored cyber attacks if we leave a hole this big wide open?
Can any network gurus out there tell me if this problem still hangs around after ipv6? Does it get bigger?
I thought a number of problems were from feeding cattle CORN. Raise them on organic pasture, as the ancients did and you'll get a healthier animal than one doped on medications.
The "Ancients"??? What is this, a sifi show or something?
100 years ago is not "ancient". And while your dreaming up and excuse for using the word Ancient, define "healthier animal".
So as written, could they take my videos from Drive - one of their services - and move it onto YouTube - another service?
If you mark them as PUBLIC, yes, they probably could do that.
But again this only applies to things you mark as public in your Drive, just like it was in Picasa, Docs, and any other portion of Google services where the option to PUBLICLY share content exists.
However, they probably would not do this, because its a tracking nightmare. You have the right to cease sharing any item in your drive. If they had copied it out, they would have to track that down and withdraw it. Chances are they would just link it to YouTube if they even bothered to do that on something you shared. That way, when you un-share, the content would disappear from YouTube without them having to take any more action.
But again, READ THE PRIVACY POLICY, and realize this is a tempest in a teapot because it only applies to stuff you EXPLICITLY share.
Many of our services let you share information with others. Remember that when you share information publicly, it may be indexable by search engines, including Google. Our services provide you with different options on sharing and removing your content.
IF you mark a document as public, Google will let anyone else see it. (e.g. Publicly display). But if you mark it private, nobody else sees it, without a warrant.
The other permissions you grant them exist solely to let them provide the service to any machine from which you log in.
So a computer program slips a topical advertisement onto your screen. Big deal.
Did you find any example of other people reading your gmail, or your gmail contents showing up in searches? No? Thought not. So what PRECISELY did you mean with that "considering Google's history" remark?
Have they ever broadcast your email, or your pictures that you marked as private, or your google docs that you marked private? Or is this just another example of a full-out google hate without letting the facts get in your way?
Conveniently left out of the summary and TFA is that this only applies to DATA YOU EXPLICITLY MAKE PUBLIC in your Google Drive. Which is the same policy as Google Docs had, same as Picasa had, etc. If you mark a document public then it can be searched for and found. (But in my tests, its rarely searchable - probably my stuff is too boring even for Google's spiders).
Information we share We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances apply: With your consent We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google when we have your consent to do so. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
So if you mark it private, it means its almost as private as it can be while still being in the cloud. Of course Google has to honor subpoenas, but your next great novel will not appear in someone's search results if mark it private.
If you want better privacy for your commercial cloud storage your best bet is SpiderOak which stores everything encrypted with an encryption key that even SpiderOak doesn't know. They use client-side decryption, and therefore couldn't hand over your stuff even at gunpoint.
To be fair, the Analog TV shutdown was pretty simple, since it was a one way transmission situation.
I can't imagine this test involved many remote transceivers, but unless listen-before-you-talk logic is not included in any consumer devices the problems of getting rid of them when new bandwidth allocations are necessary could be significant.
There are more than a few virtually forgotten routers in my neighborhood, some left plugged in even after the home-owners moved out and the place if up for sale. These go nowhere, their upstream having been disconnected, but they are still broadcasting as long as there is power in the house (which there typically is in houses for sale).
Much more spectrum is available WITHIN the DTV channels (far more than what is available in the gaps between them), and most areas not all DTV channels are in use. TFA seems to suggest they were only using the bandwidth in the buffers between channels. Having a few rogue routers yapping in channel would be problematic for new stations, or when routers are moved.
Someone is sure to recommend a command and control channel for these routers to pick up their channel allocations, and someone else is sure to hack and exploit that the minute it is deployed.
This VMware source code reportedly was stolen from Chinese military contractor CEIEC, the China National Electronics Import-Export Corporation. VMware code wasn't the only target.
What was the the Chinese military contractor doing with the VMWare source code anyway? And what other software packages were affected? Hackers hack, that's what they do. But Chinese military contractors with VMWare source code in hand seems a much bigger story if you ask me. Did they have a license to it? Can anyone get a license to it? And if so, why is this a big deal?
Vmware says:
VMware proactively shares its source code and interfaces with other industry participants to enable the broad virtualization ecosystem today.
They can't have it both ways, stating in the same memo that the code was stolen and also "proactively shared". What the heck does proactively shared mean any way? Sending out sensitive hyper-visor source code to foreign military contractors seems at best, ill advised, but then to turn around and act all surprised and defensive when someone steals it from them seems a bit of a stretch.
Actually, BOTH the size and the location of the earthquake (which was centered off-shore) was known fairly quickly. What wasn't know was whether or not a tsunami would result.
So issuing an accurate warning ten times faster (they had to have meant 1/10th the time) would have meant little, since the actual ground uplift movement was 80 miles out to sea, where no GPS meters would have been available. The actual quake itself was already known to be very large the instant it happened and the location was pin-pointed within minutes of the quake itself.
There is nothing GPS could have added to speed things up. They don't work underwater. Existing ocean buoy based sensors detected the tsunami as soon as the wave approached shallow waters where it could be distinguished from a normal wave.
So for the last several big quakes which happened off shore, these GPS detectors would not have helped speed the location or magnitude information at all. And as we have seen in recent weeks, large quakes more often then not do not trigger tsunamis.
Since quake magnitude and location are already known with minutes (generally within seconds of P wave arrival at a few sensors), I fail to see how this cuts down warning time. Since the quake is felt simultaneous with P wave arrival, the only thing left to warn about is a tsunami, and that determination is based almost solely on quake epicenter location, which is determined very very quickly by computer.
Say we get this system to 100% accuracy. We know ahead of time that little Jimmy will not be able to solve this math problem. Little Jimmy has exhausted his options and has become stuck. Then what is the point of wasting time having him stare at it? I would take this as an alert that little Jimmy needs help, to intervene, and get little Jimmy learning again.
Isn't that the old "allow no failure" school of thought repackaged?
On the other hand, if Little Jimmy stares at it a little longer, or perhaps is allowed to actually get it wrong (horrors), and then reason out why it was wrong, his learning will probably be better and longer lasting. Or if we give him a few more seconds, perhaps he will have an epiphany as his prior learning bubbles to the surface of his oat-meal brain. But most likely, jumping in 20 seconds before he offers the wrong answer isn't telling him anything he already doesn't know.
Chances are, it has nothing what so ever to do with math, but merely detects the changes in the brain that signal resignation, or the formation of Jimmy's realization that he does not know the answer or the path to the answer. His brain isn't working on math any more, its resigning him to the fact he can't solve this problem. It takes people a while to come to grips with this fact. Saving him 20 seconds AFTER he has already puzzled out this fact, but BEFORE he brings himself to write something wrong, amounts to no saving at all.
Let him spend that 20 seconds of mental anguish before writing down his guess. Chances are its a valuable part of the learning process. Why jump into micromanagement mode of a learning process we still don't understand?
The story writer starts with the naive assumption the the representative reads ANY email, that isn't first scanned and categorized by a couple layers of minions. Then moves to the assumption that there is some trick that will get his topic before the representative's eyeballs bypassing all the layers.
Totally lost on the OP is the idea that their "special issue" is no more important than those from any other constituent, and the best they have a right to is having their missive filed and counted in the appropriate pro/con pile regarding any issue.
Maybe a succinct email speaking to a specific piece of legislation referencing (and quoting) detailed points in a calm analytical way gets picked out by a staffer as particularly instructive and gets passed to the rep.
Any rambling rants get nowhere.
Any threats will get attention, but not the kind you want.
But the "fer it"/"agin it" letters get counted and are automated replies, not necessarily in that order. They've had their say. And that's all they deserve.
Any foolproof way of getting thru the layer of flak catchers wouldn't survive being public knowledge for very long. Why should any one persons view take precedence over the that of other constituents?
Once installed, you can also hit the Manage Search Engines button in settings and us any of dozens. (Some of which just offload back to Google, but that's their issue).
Because your machine does not come with Google Chrome. You had to go fetch it. And when you install it for the first time it ASKS you which search engine you want.
From then on it shows what ever you selected, and the list of choices is wider than any other browser.
Slashdot Mirror
Well 3D still doesn't work properly, and probably nothing will fix that while projecting on a flat screen.
But 48fps is simply smoother, and just as they are able to fake up 3D on films that were never shot that way, they will be able to digitally fake up with the extra frames between every 24fps frame and re-release all those old films in Astounding 48 FPS, New and Improved, Digitally Remastered, For a Limited Time Only....
Its a whole new industry, and they can sell us all copies of the disks we already bought once.
The wrath of the industry is usually tempered by box office figures.
This.
peer-reviewed? Peter Jackson has peers? Who knew?
Apparently, given the grousing these petulant bloggers post, the difference is easy enough to determine. I imagine action films would be much improved.
Me too.
Seriously, what could be wrong with 48 fps? That it didn't flicker enough?
I read this story a few days ago and actually went searching for some samples but couldn't find any at that time, other than some silly animated combat scenes.
What I did find was a bunch of bloggers who have never produced anything in their life except whiny bitching without a single valid criticism that didn't amount to jealousy and NIH.
The solution is to have routers verify that the IP address blocks announced by others routers actually belong to their networks. One method, Resource Public Key Infrastructure (RPKI), uses a system of cryptographic certificates that verify an IP address block indeed belongs to a certain network.
Well duh! You would have thought this was the case already. Why are we worrying about state sponsored cyber attacks if we leave a hole this big wide open?
Can any network gurus out there tell me if this problem still hangs around after ipv6? Does it get bigger?
Aluminum magnets! Titanium magnets!
Yeah, that will work.
I thought a number of problems were from feeding cattle CORN. Raise them on organic pasture, as the ancients did and you'll get a healthier animal than one doped on medications.
The "Ancients"???
What is this, a sifi show or something?
100 years ago is not "ancient".
And while your dreaming up and excuse for using the word Ancient, define "healthier animal".
So you were the one guy that subscribed to Buzz?
And you DO know that it was USER error/carelessness that allowed Buzz to leak, don't you?
So as written, could they take my videos from Drive - one of their services - and move it onto YouTube - another service?
If you mark them as PUBLIC, yes, they probably could do that.
But again this only applies to things you mark as public in your Drive, just like it was in Picasa, Docs, and any other portion of Google services where the option to PUBLICLY share content exists.
However, they probably would not do this, because its a tracking nightmare. You have the right to cease sharing any item in your drive. If they had copied it out, they would have to track that down and withdraw it. Chances are they would just link it to YouTube if they even bothered to do that on something you shared. That way, when you un-share, the content would disappear from YouTube without them having to take any more action.
But again, READ THE PRIVACY POLICY, and realize this is a tempest in a teapot because it only applies to stuff you EXPLICITLY share.
So, yeah, Article Fail.
You need to take a course in reading comprehension.
You forgot this portion:
Information you share
Many of our services let you share information with others. Remember that when you share information publicly, it may be indexable by search engines, including Google. Our services provide you with different options on sharing and removing your content.
IF you mark a document as public, Google will let anyone else see it. (e.g. Publicly display).
But if you mark it private, nobody else sees it, without a warrant.
The other permissions you grant them exist solely to let them provide the service to any machine from which you log in.
So a computer program slips a topical advertisement onto your screen. Big deal.
Did you find any example of other people reading your gmail, or your gmail contents showing up in searches?
No? Thought not. So what PRECISELY did you mean with that "considering Google's history" remark?
Have they ever broadcast your email, or your pictures that you marked as private, or your google docs that you marked private?
Or is this just another example of a full-out google hate without letting the facts get in your way?
Conveniently left out of the summary and TFA is that this only applies to DATA YOU EXPLICITLY MAKE PUBLIC in your Google Drive.
Which is the same policy as Google Docs had, same as Picasa had, etc.
If you mark a document public then it can be searched for and found. (But in my tests, its rarely searchable - probably my stuff is too boring even for Google's spiders).
Foremost in Google's policy it states:
Information we share
We do not share personal information with companies, organizations and individuals outside of Google unless one of the following circumstances apply:
With your consent
We will share personal information with companies, organizations or individuals outside of Google when we have your consent to do so. We require opt-in consent for the sharing of any sensitive personal information.
So if you mark it private, it means its almost as private as it can be while still being in the cloud. Of course Google has to honor subpoenas, but your next great novel will not appear in someone's search results if mark it private.
If you want better privacy for your commercial cloud storage your best bet is SpiderOak which stores everything encrypted with an encryption key that even SpiderOak doesn't know. They use client-side decryption, and therefore couldn't hand over your stuff even at gunpoint.
To be fair, the Analog TV shutdown was pretty simple, since it was a one way transmission situation.
I can't imagine this test involved many remote transceivers, but unless listen-before-you-talk logic is not included in any consumer devices the problems of getting rid of them when new bandwidth allocations are necessary could be significant.
There are more than a few virtually forgotten routers in my neighborhood, some left plugged in even after the home-owners moved out and the place if up for sale. These go nowhere, their upstream having been disconnected, but they are still broadcasting as long as there is power in the house (which there typically is in houses for sale).
Much more spectrum is available WITHIN the DTV channels (far more than what is available in the gaps between them), and most areas not all DTV channels are in use. TFA seems to suggest they were only using the bandwidth in the buffers between channels. Having a few rogue routers yapping in channel would be problematic for new stations, or when routers are moved.
Someone is sure to recommend a command and control channel for these routers to pick up their channel allocations, and someone else is sure to hack and exploit that the minute it is deployed.
Anyways, it looks like VMWare is going open source soon!
Soon? You mean already.
Much, but not all, of Vmware has long been opensource.
But you don't put out security bulletins when your opensource is stolen, now do you?
Talk about burying the lead!
This VMware source code reportedly was stolen from Chinese military contractor CEIEC, the China National Electronics Import-Export Corporation. VMware code wasn't the only target.
What was the the Chinese military contractor doing with the VMWare source code anyway? And what other software packages were affected?
Hackers hack, that's what they do. But Chinese military contractors with VMWare source code in hand seems a much bigger story if you ask me. Did they have a license to it? Can anyone get a license to it? And if so, why is this a big deal?
Vmware says:
VMware proactively shares its source code and interfaces with other industry participants to enable the broad virtualization ecosystem today.
They can't have it both ways, stating in the same memo that the code was stolen and also "proactively shared". What the heck does proactively shared mean any way? Sending out sensitive hyper-visor source code to foreign military contractors seems at best, ill advised, but then to turn around and act all surprised and defensive when someone steals it from them seems a bit of a stretch.
Actually, BOTH the size and the location of the earthquake (which was centered off-shore) was known fairly quickly.
What wasn't know was whether or not a tsunami would result.
So issuing an accurate warning ten times faster (they had to have meant 1/10th the time) would have meant little, since the actual ground uplift movement was 80 miles out to sea, where no GPS meters would have been available. The actual quake itself was already known to be very large the instant it happened and the location was pin-pointed within minutes of the quake itself.
There is nothing GPS could have added to speed things up. They don't work underwater. Existing ocean buoy based sensors detected the tsunami as soon as the wave approached shallow waters where it could be distinguished from a normal wave.
So for the last several big quakes which happened off shore, these GPS detectors would not have helped speed the location or magnitude information at all. And as we have seen in recent weeks, large quakes more often then not do not trigger tsunamis.
Since quake magnitude and location are already known with minutes (generally within seconds of P wave arrival at a few sensors), I fail to see how this cuts down warning time. Since the quake is felt simultaneous with P wave arrival, the only thing left to warn about is a tsunami, and that determination is based almost solely on quake epicenter location, which is determined very very quickly by computer.
Do something about it by detecting wrong answers 20 seconds sooner than previously?
Total Nonsense.
Say we get this system to 100% accuracy. We know ahead of time that little Jimmy will not be able to solve this math problem. Little Jimmy has exhausted his options and has become stuck. Then what is the point of wasting time having him stare at it? I would take this as an alert that little Jimmy needs help, to intervene, and get little Jimmy learning again.
Isn't that the old "allow no failure" school of thought repackaged?
On the other hand, if Little Jimmy stares at it a little longer, or perhaps is allowed to actually get it wrong (horrors), and then reason out why it was wrong, his learning will probably be better and longer lasting. Or if we give him a few more seconds, perhaps he will have an epiphany as his prior learning bubbles to the surface of his oat-meal brain. But most likely, jumping in 20 seconds before he offers the wrong answer isn't telling him anything he already doesn't know.
Chances are, it has nothing what so ever to do with math, but merely detects the changes in the brain that signal resignation, or the formation of Jimmy's realization that he does not know the answer or the path to the answer. His brain isn't working on math any more, its resigning him to the fact he can't solve this problem. It takes people a while to come to grips with this fact. Saving him 20 seconds AFTER he has already puzzled out this fact, but BEFORE he brings himself to write something wrong, amounts to no saving at all.
Let him spend that 20 seconds of mental anguish before writing down his guess. Chances are its a valuable part of the learning process. Why jump into micromanagement mode of a learning process we still don't understand?
Maybe they do, and maybe they don't. And maybe you mistook the cleverly worded form letter for something personal.
My experience with Washington State is that big campaign contributors get their letters read at a higher rate than Joe Voter.
Exactly.
The story writer starts with the naive assumption the the representative reads ANY email, that isn't first scanned and categorized by a couple layers of minions. Then moves to the assumption that there is some trick that will get his topic before the representative's eyeballs bypassing all the layers.
Totally lost on the OP is the idea that their "special issue" is no more important than those from any other constituent, and the best they have a right to is having their missive filed and counted in the appropriate pro/con pile regarding any issue.
Maybe a succinct email speaking to a specific piece of legislation referencing (and quoting) detailed points in a calm analytical way gets picked out by a staffer as particularly instructive and gets passed to the rep.
Any rambling rants get nowhere.
Any threats will get attention, but not the kind you want.
But the "fer it"/"agin it" letters get counted and are automated replies, not necessarily in that order. They've had their say. And that's all they deserve.
Any foolproof way of getting thru the layer of flak catchers wouldn't survive being public knowledge for very long. Why should any one persons view take precedence over the that of other constituents?
Once installed, you can also hit the Manage Search Engines button in settings and us any of dozens. (Some of which just offload back to Google, but that's their issue).
Because your machine does not come with Google Chrome. You had to go fetch it.
And when you install it for the first time it ASKS you which search engine you want.
From then on it shows what ever you selected, and the list of choices is wider than any other browser.
My point is that it will be slipped into the regulations so that ALL recorders have GPS data.
Congress passes laws.
Executive branch writes regs.
Regs Always exceed what the law intended.
Even without factory nav option installed, adding a gps chip embedded in the blackbox (or even the base of the radio) would cost less than 10 bucks.
This will neither prevent accidents, or save lives. All it does is allow governments to affix blame. You know tracking will be mandatory.