You're quite right that the 60fps version had a few glitches in it (thanks to bad video quality). It's surprisingly hard to get smooth and fast video on the PC for various reasons, unless you know what exact codecs to use.
As I said in another post, the answer to that is the same reason why you would care if everyone was satisfied with an old 300Mhz processor for all their computing needs.
Basically, the more people realise that there *is* an improvement, the quicker things will progress.
Well I haven't been to the cinema and noticed anything other than 24fps films being run. However, cooking progs and soap operas are apparently more worthy to be shot at much higher frame rates. Not much logic in that really.
The word 'blinding' was just put in for effect of course. You'll find that RealLife (tm) runs at (practically) infinite frames per second. Human vision may notice differences up to about 200-1000 fps. A long way to go yet.
That may have something to do with how LCD displays have a bad response time (causing blurring - a separate issue from frame rate). Alternatively, perhaps the programmes you view were shot at 30 or 60fps, so they weren't meant for 120fps TVs anyway.
OLED technology should fix both issues in the future, as they have incredible response times, and probably excellent frame rate potential.
Yes - the 60-120FPS thing is a limitation of our current display tech. However, OLED potentially at least has the ability to display blinding frame rate speeds (never mind the blurring aspect, as OLED has a response time in the micro seconds - 500x faster than LCD).
About your question why I get irritated. The answer may be similar to why you would want a faster processor, but where everyone is happy with slow 300Mhz CPUs (which obviously isn't the case). It may also have something to do with how films are shot at 30fps. Almost always. They're jerky if you know what to look for.
Perhaps even more irritating than this, is how some people can't distinguish between 30 and 60 FPS (or at least don't care), when of course there is a massive difference. The latter is much smoother for all kinds of programmes and games. 120 FPS of course would be even better...
And that is why it attracts scorn here. This is a place for science-types.
I don't think that's the main reason it attracts scorn. The main reason is simply because most here would not think Creationism, or any of the variants are true at all.
The difference there is the secretary's writings will be viewable to the public. In the case of HTML, the 'mistakes' are behind the scenes and not viewable to the public. If the end result is what really counts, then why the heck care?
Yes, I appreciate how standards can help remove ambiguities, but as long as browsers render 100% validated HTML exactly the same, then it's only a bonus if they ALSO allow leeway for webmasters' mistakes/shortcuts. Those are two separate, but not incompatible goals.
In the end, if it looks fine on all the major browsers, then it's bordering on obsession to fix validation for webmasters who simply have more important things to spend their time on. If that makes them worse at 'coding' HTML, then so be it.
To me, it's a 'bug' that you even have to close the br tag, when one should suffice.
I suppose the whole thing is comparable to grammar. Most times, unusual spelling or grammar will be for the worse. However, sometimes, it will make things clearer, shorter, or just be more logical.
But in the end, the thing I would drum home is that the time spent to get 100% validation would just be better off spent making the web site in other ways.
Simply because our filesystems are too slow for the kind of metadata style databases that music programs use.
Instead of basing our music players around the filesystem, we should base our filesystems around our music players. The resulting metadata/tagged (database) file system works much better in the end.
Joking aside, Google sums up the change on their web site Free the Airwaves. From what I gather, devices will only be able to be sold as lnog as they keep to a restricted set of wavelengths.
Other than that, it's a 'free for all', which should in theory allow cheaper wifi, broadband, free mobile phone calls (as they would communicate directly with each other), and healthy competition in the overall communication sector.
There are very good reasons to allow public use of white space. Internet access prices should drop, wifi should become more widespread, and there's the tasty idea of mobile phone calls (at least local) becoming FREE, since they will communicate *directly* with each other.
Google are in fact in favour, and have created a website here. They sum it up pretty well.
I'm probably even lazier than the average user in tagging so I know where you're coming from. The system wouldn't force you to tag files. But in these cases, the metadata file system would be *no worse* than a folder based one. You'd still have the hunting problem for folders.
Many files are saved which are not that important, so I wouldn't tag these necessarily (unless in batch). But if the files were that important, then a tag or two wouldn't hurt.
As regards the "home" or "address" or "girlfirend" or "spouse" thing, well a thesaurus or a giant word association database (degrees of how similar each word is to other words) would solve that problem.
Yes, but that same problem with exist with folders anyway. When metatag systems don't work, they are no worse than folder-based systems. When they do work, they shine.
Chances are that if the photo was that important, you'd have given it at least two tags anyway.
Even if you're okay about the intrusion of privacy, slowing down the internet by that much is horrible...
It's policies like these which really make me think an open source style government would be the answer. Although it's not perfect, what's particularly interesting about the linked site is how people's opinions are weighted. People who are voted by other people as having a good understanding in an area will have a higher chance of enforcing laws and making decisions. Those people themselves are voted by yet other people. It's a bit like Google's PageRank, but for people instead.
(I am in no way affiliated with that site, but stumbled upon it I think from an old slashdot post, and happen to think it's a good idea)
But the metadata system would then be clever, and find the files with MOST of the tags that have been searched for. Like Google, the most promising files would show at the top of the filtered list.
It can give priority to the tags you inputed first, so with your example, Mark, Chicago and 2003 would be the most important and therefore would come first.
The hierachrical system is an outdated concept based on traditional methods of meat-space organization.
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this yet, but a metadata filesystem would save so much time. Tracks would be autotagged with timestamp, size, and filetype if possible, but allowing the user to set their own custom tags would bring out the real benefits.
It would work like Google, where every file is in a single folder. You would an ultra-fast filter window to narrow down to any criteria. Tags could be reused easily (the filesystem would save recently used tags in a dropdown menu on opening or saving), and a thesaurus would help detect near misses if need be. Here's a little more info:
Slashdot Mirror
You're quite right that the 60fps version had a few glitches in it (thanks to bad video quality). It's surprisingly hard to get smooth and fast video on the PC for various reasons, unless you know what exact codecs to use.
An earlier post mentioned this comparison which is probably better:
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1069482
As I said in another post, the answer to that is the same reason why you would care if everyone was satisfied with an old 300Mhz processor for all their computing needs.
Basically, the more people realise that there *is* an improvement, the quicker things will progress.
Yet there really isn't a lot of 120 fps material to display
I wonder indeed if there's any. In the future of course, material with such frame rates would become more widespread anyway.
Well I haven't been to the cinema and noticed anything other than 24fps films being run. However, cooking progs and soap operas are apparently more worthy to be shot at much higher frame rates. Not much logic in that really.
The word 'blinding' was just put in for effect of course. You'll find that RealLife (tm) runs at (practically) infinite frames per second. Human vision may notice differences up to about 200-1000 fps. A long way to go yet.
That may have something to do with how LCD displays have a bad response time (causing blurring - a separate issue from frame rate). Alternatively, perhaps the programmes you view were shot at 30 or 60fps, so they weren't meant for 120fps TVs anyway.
OLED technology should fix both issues in the future, as they have incredible response times, and probably excellent frame rate potential.
Yes - the 60-120FPS thing is a limitation of our current display tech. However, OLED potentially at least has the ability to display blinding frame rate speeds (never mind the blurring aspect, as OLED has a response time in the micro seconds - 500x faster than LCD).
About your question why I get irritated. The answer may be similar to why you would want a faster processor, but where everyone is happy with slow 300Mhz CPUs (which obviously isn't the case). It may also have something to do with how films are shot at 30fps. Almost always. They're jerky if you know what to look for.
Try this - you may notice the difference after all. Honestly, it's not *that* hard to spot: Vid comparison of 24fps versus 60fps
They always shoot (or at least play) films at 25/30fps, and that irritates me no end. They basically look quite jerky when you know what to look for.
Perhaps even more irritating than this, is how some people can't distinguish between 30 and 60 FPS (or at least don't care), when of course there is a massive difference. The latter is much smoother for all kinds of programmes and games. 120 FPS of course would be even better...
And that is why it attracts scorn here. This is a place for science-types.
I don't think that's the main reason it attracts scorn. The main reason is simply because most here would not think Creationism, or any of the variants are true at all.
The difference there is the secretary's writings will be viewable to the public. In the case of HTML, the 'mistakes' are behind the scenes and not viewable to the public. If the end result is what really counts, then why the heck care?
Yes, I appreciate how standards can help remove ambiguities, but as long as browsers render 100% validated HTML exactly the same, then it's only a bonus if they ALSO allow leeway for webmasters' mistakes/shortcuts. Those are two separate, but not incompatible goals.
In the end, if it looks fine on all the major browsers, then it's bordering on obsession to fix validation for webmasters who simply have more important things to spend their time on. If that makes them worse at 'coding' HTML, then so be it.
To me, it's a 'bug' that you even have to close the br tag, when one should suffice.
I suppose the whole thing is comparable to grammar. Most times, unusual spelling or grammar will be for the worse. However, sometimes, it will make things clearer, shorter, or just be more logical.
But in the end, the thing I would drum home is that the time spent to get 100% validation would just be better off spent making the web site in other ways.
Ooops, that was supposed to contain a br tag. Trust slashdot to mess up despite me posting as plain text.
I've never understood the obsession with validation. Especially 100% validation.
"Oh noes, my
hasn't been closed. Maybe it will crash millions of browsers across the world"
I think that's his sig :)
Can you give a couple of famous examples of companies where that's happened?
Simply because our filesystems are too slow for the kind of metadata style databases that music programs use.
Instead of basing our music players around the filesystem, we should base our filesystems around our music players. The resulting metadata/tagged (database) file system works much better in the end.
Linky
Joking aside, Google sums up the change on their web site Free the Airwaves. From what I gather, devices will only be able to be sold as lnog as they keep to a restricted set of wavelengths.
Other than that, it's a 'free for all', which should in theory allow cheaper wifi, broadband, free mobile phone calls (as they would communicate directly with each other), and healthy competition in the overall communication sector.
There are very good reasons to allow public use of white space. Internet access prices should drop, wifi should become more widespread, and there's the tasty idea of mobile phone calls (at least local) becoming FREE, since they will communicate *directly* with each other.
Google are in fact in favour, and have created a website here. They sum it up pretty well.
I'm probably even lazier than the average user in tagging so I know where you're coming from. The system wouldn't force you to tag files. But in these cases, the metadata file system would be *no worse* than a folder based one. You'd still have the hunting problem for folders.
Many files are saved which are not that important, so I wouldn't tag these necessarily (unless in batch). But if the files were that important, then a tag or two wouldn't hurt.
As regards the "home" or "address" or "girlfirend" or "spouse" thing, well a thesaurus or a giant word association database (degrees of how similar each word is to other words) would solve that problem.
Yes, but that same problem with exist with folders anyway. When metatag systems don't work, they are no worse than folder-based systems. When they do work, they shine.
Chances are that if the photo was that important, you'd have given it at least two tags anyway.
Even if you're okay about the intrusion of privacy, slowing down the internet by that much is horrible...
It's policies like these which really make me think an open source style government would be the answer. Although it's not perfect, what's particularly interesting about the linked site is how people's opinions are weighted. People who are voted by other people as having a good understanding in an area will have a higher chance of enforcing laws and making decisions. Those people themselves are voted by yet other people. It's a bit like Google's PageRank, but for people instead.
(I am in no way affiliated with that site, but stumbled upon it I think from an old slashdot post, and happen to think it's a good idea)
But the metadata system would then be clever, and find the files with MOST of the tags that have been searched for. Like Google, the most promising files would show at the top of the filtered list.
It can give priority to the tags you inputed first, so with your example, Mark, Chicago and 2003 would be the most important and therefore would come first.
Problem solved.
The hierachrical system is an outdated concept based on traditional methods of meat-space organization.
I'm surprised no one else has mentioned this yet, but a metadata filesystem would save so much time. Tracks would be autotagged with timestamp, size, and filetype if possible, but allowing the user to set their own custom tags would bring out the real benefits.
It would work like Google, where every file is in a single folder. You would an ultra-fast filter window to narrow down to any criteria. Tags could be reused easily (the filesystem would save recently used tags in a dropdown menu on opening or saving), and a thesaurus would help detect near misses if need be. Here's a little more info:
http://www.skytopia.com/project/articles/filesystem.html
In any case, for all the hardened folder adherents, there's no reason why they two systems can't coexist.
Yes I know, I meant that the 2D projection of a 3D object is much harder for computers to analyze than humans.