Broadcasters worked so hard on guaranteeing rent, they forgot they were providing a service. If the service sucks, even if the content is good, more people will wait and consume only via other methods (like DVD or Netflix).
I've not seen anything in the Aereo service that reduces the visibility of commercials any differently than a number of explicitly legal time shifting methods.
If you own the antenna (not rent, but own) and own and manage the transmitting device, then it's legal. If you pay someone to rent or support it, it's a public re-broadcast.
And if Aerreo wins, they can decide whether it's cheaper to re-engineer or continue paying. Maybe threaten to re-engineer and get lower charges, passing the savings on to the viewers.
It's fundamentally no different from DirecTV which allows me to schedule recordings online.
It is fundamentally different from DirecTV because DirecTV has explicit contracts and permission. Many of the "questionable" services have agreements we don't know about. The ones sued don't.
And if the creators choose to broadcast the work for free, who am I to refuse them? I can record it. I can play it back later. But, apparently, I can't pay someone to help me do that.
The broadcaster is paying the fees for the content and getting nothing in return.
So if I turn on my TV and watch ABC over the air, I'm stealing by taking the content and not paying ABC for it? So far, every argument against Aereo is also an argument against watching broadcast TV live.
During an emergency, there is still nothing as efficient as broadcast for dissemination of information to the public. Broadcast has not and will not for a very long time become a "buggy whip". You may decide not to rely on or use it, but many many other people do.
There's still radio. Oh, and what's wrong with me setting up a PVR? Is that illegal as well? If not, why are you arguing that it should be illegal for me to pay someone to do something that's legal? LOL. I just though of the analogy. Aereo are TV pimps. It's ok if you get it for free, but if you pay for it, it's illegal, unless you pay the state-mandated monopoly. I can have sex all I want, but I can't pay for it. I can record TV all I want, but I can't pay someone to set it up for me.
So, if I turn on the TV and watch "free" TV, I'm a leach? I didn't pay anything to get the content. That's what Aereo is doing. Providing the content, as broadcast. It was broadcast for free. So what's the problem?
Aereo is, in fact, entirely dependant on ABC et al, they just don't think they need to pay for that.
That's because ABC is free. I turn on my TV, and I get ABC. For free. So Aereo is abusing the system by more efficiently distributing free product. ABC is just mad because if Aereo wins, they may lose control over Comcast/TWC contracts. That the contract was superfluous doesn't mean ABC wouldn't miss the income.
Also, ABC is largely not a content producer, either. The broadcast corporations are more directly funding content now, but that's separate. Note, it's the broadcasters, not the content owners, taking this case to court. Why would the guy giving away fliers on the street corner get mad if someone he gave one to posted it up on a bulletin board?
The difference is that all the motor-carriage makers also make buggy whips. You are missing it because they make motor-carriages, and every motor-carriage is bundled with an expensive and useless buggy whip. But that's not your choice. You buy the motor-buggy, or you don't. You can't buy one without the whip. Yes, the whip is useless, and a waste of time and money for the buyers. But inconveniencing the users is all the whip makers have left. You can try to make your own motor-carriage, but we all know home-made fan carriages aren't the same.
Also, you don't understand what the analogy is about. Not Disney, but Buena Vista and Touchstone. Creation is untouched by distribution. Distribution is what's under attack. Nobody wants or needs a buggy whip anymore. But they still want the carriage, it's just a motor carriage now, not a horse-driven carriage.
Whether you've been sued is irrelevant to whether it's legal. The Supremes deal with legality, not enforcement.
And the argument isn't binding. The Supremes can find against Aereo and state "the lack of a *formal* agreement and that the content was not uploaded securely by the user himself makes this a distribution by Aereo, and thus a valid legal tort" both making Aereo illegal and securing Cloud for everyone else. The fact that the argument was raised just means it will likely be addressed in the finding.
Yes. 2D= flat. 2D + depth = 3D. You only have 3D in 3D, and not 3D. Or so goes your statement.
I think the complaint you are looking for is that it's fixed perspective 3D. But that's still 3D. But really, how would you expect a "true" 3D movie to work? You look up and see the boom mike? Turn around and see the camera and crew? Your argument is like claiming that a live play isn't 3D if it isn't theater in the round, because the proscenium arch restricts viewing width, same as a stereoscopic movie.
Everything is stereoscopic to the eye. It's theoretically possible to simulate all 3D cues possible with images fed to the eyes, as that's what we use now for real life's 3D. We would just need to make the image multi-focal-length (something that's possible now, but impractical for movie theater viewing experiences). But in the strictest sense of the word, is still stereoscopic, as the definition doesn't require that the images be flat (though assumed, as when the first products came to market, that's all that was possible).
Interestingly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Volume displays you mention are listed under stereoscopy, as an actual 3D image is nothing more than presenting different images to the eye. Yes, in a pedantic sense, even a Star Trek hologram is stereoscopy. It presents two different images to the eye to simulate depth. It just does so by creating a 3D hologram.
So where's the training manual on where to look in a movie? I should pick it up from pompous pricks off the Internet? Given the large number of complaints I've seen about it, it's not just me. That makes it a systemic issue with the UI, not a user error. But, like a good IT professional, you blame the user for incompetent UI.
For movie screens, everything is at screen distance, which is sufficiently infinity for the focal length. The effect you mention doesn't bother me, just when the deliberately out-of-focus parts are in the fore of a 3D scene. The 3D makes them jump at you, but you can't focus on them, because they were recorded out of focus.
No, it's not regardless of where you look. It just so happens you aren't looking at the proper places and there's a reason for that.
Yes, it's the user's fault that the product is faulty. They are using 2D cues to remove focus and 3D cues to emphasize focus. It's that conflict that is the problem, not where I'm looking.
Yes, congratulations, you won the argument. Too bad you don't even know what it was. My sister got a philosophy degree. It's the study of arguing, without saying anything. If you want to say something while arguing, take law.
What happens when there is no playbook and no simple solution? Real inventiveness is hard, takes time, and there is a certain amount of risk involved. Executives dont want want to hear any of this, and employees either too scared to speak up, or too powerless to influence.
Having to spend hours with support or researching the error to make the decision doesn't mean the answer is trivial, just because the question was phased in a yes/no manner.
The real problem is that management degrees do not include enough computer science and are not taught how to incorporate the culture of science into their business model.
Why should a management degree be technical? The management degree is about people and finance, not tech. The tech degree is about tech, to the exclusion of business and people. I agree it would make sense to have a little more generality in degrees, but too much, and you might as well major in "undecided" for all degrees.
But then you can't enhance. And I remember when "VGA camera" was a standard to be aspired to. Now I own no less than 3 10+ megapixel cameras, 10+ MP in a phone that cost about $500 without any contracts/subsidies. The dedicated camera cost more than that, but has more features. Sadly, the camera in the phone is almost exactly what you are asking for.
I can't see the people for the out-of-focus plants blocking the view. Put them in focus, and I'll look where I'm "supposed to". But no, we get 2D depth forced on us in 3D movies, making some people ill, regardless of where we look (unless, like the Bourne movies and Blair-witch look alikes, we close our eyes for the shaky parts).
Then they could finally do 3D right. I hate 3D movies because movies like Avatar make me ill. They are much more enjoyable in 2D. Why? Because directors (even 3D ones) still think in 2D. The scenes where the director has foreground shrubbery to help set setting and such, the plants are out of focus because the focus range is so small, but jumping out at you because they are closer. For 3D, if you are using 3D for depth, not just an occasional shark-jumping-out-of-the-screen moment, everything should be in focus. Let the 3D provide the depth, and let the viewer selectively focus. But forcing us to look at the actors because they are the only thing in focus, while forcing us to look at blurry plants because they are jumping out at us will always get a poor result.
3D will never look right if the same movie is watchable in 2D. But since everything is dual-D, none will be right for both. And that's a director problem.
I see the eventual benefit being something like a security cam with CSI-like refocusing capabilities. It may be 3+ generations away, but it's getting more possible.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. Logic, statistics, problem solving, are all core to CS degrees, so I fail to see where the degree is "irrelevant to IT".
My CS left me able to design a CPU (yes, CS was under EE at the time), build an OS to run it, build a file system to use storage, and build a database to live on the file system for holding data. But there was *nothing* in a CS degree on troubleshooting a complex problem. Sure, one could infer that you break the problem down, but that was *never* taught, and there were graduates who had a set method of dealing with *all* problems.
Step 1) check power. Step 2) reboot Step 3) re-seat all hardware etc.
Now, apply that for a user complaint of a spelling error in an output. Gets pretty stupid. And that's CS graduates. Critical thinking was *never* taught, just implied. The expectation was that someone who couldn't do it would have failed out, but it was *never* taught.
Now, that may be because I was old enough to get an EE version of CS, but that was how it was. I'm not going to re-do a CS just to see if the accreditation standards changed since then.
How does that work when there's an actual bug in the software or hardware problem (or user error)?
"Hi, how do I save a Word file on to my network share?" *wipe/reinstall* "How do I save a word file on to my network share?" *repeat*
My time in a corporate help desk indicates to me that more than 50% of all problems are user training issues. Nobody trains users. You just give them stuff and hope they figure it out. When everyone uses Office 2003, that's not so bad of an idea. But when you end up with some on 2003, some on 2007, some on newer, and some on other packages, you get lots of issues.
Slashdot Mirror
Broadcasters worked so hard on guaranteeing rent, they forgot they were providing a service. If the service sucks, even if the content is good, more people will wait and consume only via other methods (like DVD or Netflix).
I've not seen anything in the Aereo service that reduces the visibility of commercials any differently than a number of explicitly legal time shifting methods.
If you own the antenna (not rent, but own) and own and manage the transmitting device, then it's legal. If you pay someone to rent or support it, it's a public re-broadcast.
And if Aerreo wins, they can decide whether it's cheaper to re-engineer or continue paying. Maybe threaten to re-engineer and get lower charges, passing the savings on to the viewers.
It's fundamentally no different from DirecTV which allows me to schedule recordings online.
It is fundamentally different from DirecTV because DirecTV has explicit contracts and permission. Many of the "questionable" services have agreements we don't know about. The ones sued don't.
And if the creators choose to broadcast the work for free, who am I to refuse them? I can record it. I can play it back later. But, apparently, I can't pay someone to help me do that.
The broadcaster is paying the fees for the content and getting nothing in return.
So if I turn on my TV and watch ABC over the air, I'm stealing by taking the content and not paying ABC for it? So far, every argument against Aereo is also an argument against watching broadcast TV live.
During an emergency, there is still nothing as efficient as broadcast for dissemination of information to the public. Broadcast has not and will not for a very long time become a "buggy whip". You may decide not to rely on or use it, but many many other people do.
There's still radio. Oh, and what's wrong with me setting up a PVR? Is that illegal as well? If not, why are you arguing that it should be illegal for me to pay someone to do something that's legal? LOL. I just though of the analogy. Aereo are TV pimps. It's ok if you get it for free, but if you pay for it, it's illegal, unless you pay the state-mandated monopoly. I can have sex all I want, but I can't pay for it. I can record TV all I want, but I can't pay someone to set it up for me.
So, if I turn on the TV and watch "free" TV, I'm a leach? I didn't pay anything to get the content. That's what Aereo is doing. Providing the content, as broadcast. It was broadcast for free. So what's the problem?
Aereo is, in fact, entirely dependant on ABC et al, they just don't think they need to pay for that.
That's because ABC is free. I turn on my TV, and I get ABC. For free. So Aereo is abusing the system by more efficiently distributing free product. ABC is just mad because if Aereo wins, they may lose control over Comcast/TWC contracts. That the contract was superfluous doesn't mean ABC wouldn't miss the income.
Also, ABC is largely not a content producer, either. The broadcast corporations are more directly funding content now, but that's separate. Note, it's the broadcasters, not the content owners, taking this case to court. Why would the guy giving away fliers on the street corner get mad if someone he gave one to posted it up on a bulletin board?
The difference is that all the motor-carriage makers also make buggy whips. You are missing it because they make motor-carriages, and every motor-carriage is bundled with an expensive and useless buggy whip. But that's not your choice. You buy the motor-buggy, or you don't. You can't buy one without the whip. Yes, the whip is useless, and a waste of time and money for the buyers. But inconveniencing the users is all the whip makers have left. You can try to make your own motor-carriage, but we all know home-made fan carriages aren't the same.
Also, you don't understand what the analogy is about. Not Disney, but Buena Vista and Touchstone. Creation is untouched by distribution. Distribution is what's under attack. Nobody wants or needs a buggy whip anymore. But they still want the carriage, it's just a motor carriage now, not a horse-driven carriage.
The difference is that you aren't distributing publicly and commercially. That you see no difference doesn't mean nobody else can see a difference.
Whether you've been sued is irrelevant to whether it's legal. The Supremes deal with legality, not enforcement.
And the argument isn't binding. The Supremes can find against Aereo and state "the lack of a *formal* agreement and that the content was not uploaded securely by the user himself makes this a distribution by Aereo, and thus a valid legal tort" both making Aereo illegal and securing Cloud for everyone else. The fact that the argument was raised just means it will likely be addressed in the finding.
You only have the depth perception,
Yes. 2D= flat. 2D + depth = 3D. You only have 3D in 3D, and not 3D. Or so goes your statement.
I think the complaint you are looking for is that it's fixed perspective 3D. But that's still 3D. But really, how would you expect a "true" 3D movie to work? You look up and see the boom mike? Turn around and see the camera and crew? Your argument is like claiming that a live play isn't 3D if it isn't theater in the round, because the proscenium arch restricts viewing width, same as a stereoscopic movie.
Everything is stereoscopic to the eye. It's theoretically possible to simulate all 3D cues possible with images fed to the eyes, as that's what we use now for real life's 3D. We would just need to make the image multi-focal-length (something that's possible now, but impractical for movie theater viewing experiences). But in the strictest sense of the word, is still stereoscopic, as the definition doesn't require that the images be flat (though assumed, as when the first products came to market, that's all that was possible).
Interestingly, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... Volume displays you mention are listed under stereoscopy, as an actual 3D image is nothing more than presenting different images to the eye. Yes, in a pedantic sense, even a Star Trek hologram is stereoscopy. It presents two different images to the eye to simulate depth. It just does so by creating a 3D hologram.
if you know where/how to look.
So where's the training manual on where to look in a movie? I should pick it up from pompous pricks off the Internet? Given the large number of complaints I've seen about it, it's not just me. That makes it a systemic issue with the UI, not a user error. But, like a good IT professional, you blame the user for incompetent UI.
Doesn't help. Do you have glaucoma? Those of us with working peripheral vision manage to see the entire screen, even when sitting up close.
For movie screens, everything is at screen distance, which is sufficiently infinity for the focal length. The effect you mention doesn't bother me, just when the deliberately out-of-focus parts are in the fore of a 3D scene. The 3D makes them jump at you, but you can't focus on them, because they were recorded out of focus.
No, it's not regardless of where you look. It just so happens you aren't looking at the proper places and there's a reason for that.
Yes, it's the user's fault that the product is faulty. They are using 2D cues to remove focus and 3D cues to emphasize focus. It's that conflict that is the problem, not where I'm looking.
Yes, congratulations, you won the argument. Too bad you don't even know what it was. My sister got a philosophy degree. It's the study of arguing, without saying anything. If you want to say something while arguing, take law.
What happens when there is no playbook and no simple solution? Real inventiveness is hard, takes time, and there is a certain amount of risk involved. Executives dont want want to hear any of this, and employees either too scared to speak up, or too powerless to influence.
Having to spend hours with support or researching the error to make the decision doesn't mean the answer is trivial, just because the question was phased in a yes/no manner.
The real problem is that management degrees do not include enough computer science and are not taught how to incorporate the culture of science into their business model.
Why should a management degree be technical? The management degree is about people and finance, not tech. The tech degree is about tech, to the exclusion of business and people. I agree it would make sense to have a little more generality in degrees, but too much, and you might as well major in "undecided" for all degrees.
But then you can't enhance. And I remember when "VGA camera" was a standard to be aspired to. Now I own no less than 3 10+ megapixel cameras, 10+ MP in a phone that cost about $500 without any contracts/subsidies. The dedicated camera cost more than that, but has more features. Sadly, the camera in the phone is almost exactly what you are asking for.
I can't see the people for the out-of-focus plants blocking the view. Put them in focus, and I'll look where I'm "supposed to". But no, we get 2D depth forced on us in 3D movies, making some people ill, regardless of where we look (unless, like the Bourne movies and Blair-witch look alikes, we close our eyes for the shaky parts).
Then they could finally do 3D right. I hate 3D movies because movies like Avatar make me ill. They are much more enjoyable in 2D. Why? Because directors (even 3D ones) still think in 2D. The scenes where the director has foreground shrubbery to help set setting and such, the plants are out of focus because the focus range is so small, but jumping out at you because they are closer. For 3D, if you are using 3D for depth, not just an occasional shark-jumping-out-of-the-screen moment, everything should be in focus. Let the 3D provide the depth, and let the viewer selectively focus. But forcing us to look at the actors because they are the only thing in focus, while forcing us to look at blurry plants because they are jumping out at us will always get a poor result.
3D will never look right if the same movie is watchable in 2D. But since everything is dual-D, none will be right for both. And that's a director problem.
I see the eventual benefit being something like a security cam with CSI-like refocusing capabilities. It may be 3+ generations away, but it's getting more possible.
Zoom. Enhance.
I'm going to have to disagree with you. Logic, statistics, problem solving, are all core to CS degrees, so I fail to see where the degree is "irrelevant to IT".
My CS left me able to design a CPU (yes, CS was under EE at the time), build an OS to run it, build a file system to use storage, and build a database to live on the file system for holding data. But there was *nothing* in a CS degree on troubleshooting a complex problem. Sure, one could infer that you break the problem down, but that was *never* taught, and there were graduates who had a set method of dealing with *all* problems.
Step 1) check power.
Step 2) reboot
Step 3) re-seat all hardware
etc.
Now, apply that for a user complaint of a spelling error in an output. Gets pretty stupid. And that's CS graduates. Critical thinking was *never* taught, just implied. The expectation was that someone who couldn't do it would have failed out, but it was *never* taught.
Now, that may be because I was old enough to get an EE version of CS, but that was how it was. I'm not going to re-do a CS just to see if the accreditation standards changed since then.
How does that work when there's an actual bug in the software or hardware problem (or user error)?
"Hi, how do I save a Word file on to my network share?"
*wipe/reinstall*
"How do I save a word file on to my network share?"
*repeat*
My time in a corporate help desk indicates to me that more than 50% of all problems are user training issues. Nobody trains users. You just give them stuff and hope they figure it out. When everyone uses Office 2003, that's not so bad of an idea. But when you end up with some on 2003, some on 2007, some on newer, and some on other packages, you get lots of issues.