This is open to the public. I wonder how many points are really going to be represented. It seems that the speakers are all hands off or pro-government regulation. Is anyone thinking of attending? Would be nice to see a report on what occured.
ISOC CHAPTERS UPDATE
* D.C. CHAPTER'S PUBLIC MEETING ON PRIVACY
The Washington, D.C., chapter of the Internet Society will hold a public meeting on Internet privacy issues on 12 January 2000. Privacy is a broad topic that touches all of us in so many ways and raises lots of concerns. Some people are looking out for us, while others are looking at us. Is the government going through our e-mail and listening to all of our phone calls? If so, is that ok because of the threats of terrorism and gangsters? How much control should vendors have over the use and dissemination of information about us; how much should we? If you want to hear opinions on multiple sides of the issues, come to the meeting. It will be held from 7-9 p.m. at Booz-Allen at Tysons Corner, Allen Building, 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA. Speakers include Declan McCullagh, Washington bureau chief for Wired News; Kawika Daguio, Executive Vice President of the Finanicial Info Protection Association; and Mike Vatis, Chief of the National Infrastructure Protection Center. For more information on the meeting and for more detailed biographies of the speakers see the dc chapter's site.
Here is a full explanation of how it works - cool
on
Live or Memorex?
·
· Score: 4
I guess it can tell the Jets from the grass.
How it Works
The central computer in the 1st & Ten system examines every frame of video in real time (i.e. 30 times per second) and determines which pixels to change to yellow. These are all the points in the image where an actual painted-on-the-field first down line would be visible, such as grass along the line that is not obscured by a player or referee. It determines which pixels to change based on very precise information about the camera's view, a 3D model of the field, which camera is on air, and a palette of colors for the field and another palette for players.
Pixels along the line with colors from the field palette are changed to yellow unless that color is also in the palette for players. Player colors and other colors not on the field palette are left unchanged. This makes the virtual line visible where the field is visible and hidden where the field is obscured, just as a real line would be.
Each camera in the 1st & Ten system, is instrumented with very precise encoders for pan, tilt, zoom, focus and extender (1x or 2x doubler). A computer at each camera reads the encoders and transmits these readings to the Sportvision production truck 30 times per second. Another computer in the truck gathers readings from all the cameras and transmits a consolidated data stream to the central computer. These readings and the 3D field model go into a geometrical calculation that determines which pixels in the video frame would be in an unobstructed view of a real first down line.
Yet another computer determines, also 30 times per second, which camera is tallied (on air). It does this by comparing the video streams from each of the 1st & Ten cameras to the program video. This computer allows for graphics, such as the constant time and score box, that are not in the camera view but are introduced into the program video. The result, camera 1, 2, 3 or none of them, is transmitted to the same computer that is consolidating data from the three cameras, and it adds tally to the data stream going to the central computer.
The final computer has only one simple but crucial task, draw the yellow line in video 60 times per second (every field, not just frame) and send that to a linear keyer to superimpose the yellow onto the program video.
Manipulation by the media is not new and it may only get worse. The media today controls information - period. What should make people even more fearful is the way in which people accept wha they see on TV as the truth without giving the story any critical thinking.
A great way to see how you have been affected is to watch a major news organization cover a technology story. Often we can see so many holes and gloss overs because of our level of knowledge in the subject. However, one should realize that this is how they are presenting every story - there are major holes and a often a hightened sense of drama in order to sell the story. Look for this next time you read/watch a news story on a subject you are not so familiar with - watch them influence the suject matter experts they bring in to agree with outlandish ideas. The ones that return are the one who ar the most entertaining.
As far as image manipulation - this will only add to the arsenal. Real time reporting will look awesome - hurricanes will blow harder, the blood will be redder, the peacock (NBC) or the eye (CBS) will be super imposed on object behind the reports to increase the international/national impression of the reporter and their corporations.
God bless/. and those like it to encourage rational and critical thinking. Who wants to start a news/.?
It is bad when a few companies control so much of something. However, as far as how this affects both comapnies, AOL and TW benefit greatly. AOL gets the 'programing' and content (etc) while TW extends its market to half the expendable income in the world.
I hope for our sake and most likely the sake of our children that the FTC blocks this. TW already has the ability to implement mind control (in the form of repeating news) on the world. To put matters simply,/. , and those like it which incorporate human input, are the last entries into the media world for a long time. But even when a story is 'broke' here, the rest of the world's population hears it spung and dumbed down by the like of TW and its peers.
I was getting copied on the following through Internet Soc. I thought some of you might find it interesting. It starts with Gordon Howell, President, Electronic Commerce One writing the editors of TIME and then we see a reply from Vint Cerf. Pretty neat. Gordon also pushes for a deeper look into who has made a contribution to society. I think you all will enjoy this.....
First Vint: ------------ big smile
v
Now Gordon (you can take it from here): ----------- At 10:46 AM 12/21/99 -0800, Gordon Howell wrote: vint -- your modesty merely confirms my observations!
I have nothing but admiration (and a teensy bit of envy!) for Jeff and wouldn't diminish his achievements. My point is that this award sets a milestone in history which will be looked at centuries hence. The long lens of history tells us that we don't by and large remember the names of the entrepreneurs who made their fortunes digging the California gold, but we *do* remember that it was Sutter's Mill where it all happened. (of course you might argue back that TCP/IP could look a little different in a century...:-)
However I bow to your gracious decline of the "People who really matter Man of the Year award" and suggest that we collectively create the "Geek of the millenium Award" and bestow it on Jon Postel.
Happy holidays to you. See you in the next century should the world still exist...
-gordon Subject: Re: Time magazine "man of the year" choice From: "vinton g. cerf" Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:20:27 -0500 X-Message-Number: 2
Dear Gordon,
Your letter to the Time editor is most kind. One imagines that the conventional wisdom is that business leaders have the most significant visibility when it comes to perceived impact. One has only to see the frequency with which Bill Gates is mentioned to appreciate this perspective.
There is some truth to the idea that people who are able to unleash the energy of the business sector have the most significant impact on everyone else, even if they did not invent the technology that allows them to succeed. So on balance, I think it is not entirely inappropriate for Jeff Bezos to receive this recognition.
Vint Cerf
Wishing everyone: http://HaveAVeryMerryXmas.com/
__________________________________ Editor --
I must express my diasappointment (and that of many of my professional colleagues in the Internet industry) at the choice of Jeff Bezos as Man of the Year.
While all credit is due Jeff for his vision and drive, and being an inspiration to all the other budding.com entrpreneurs; he is more an example of 'right place, right time' with a huge PR achinge behind him than someone who has single-handedly really made a difference on the internet. In common with what many people are doing right now, Jeff creamed one of the more obvious candidates for Internet e-commerce. While my hat is off to a great web site and business, he has little more to offer than any number of other potential choices, if you are specifically looking for an 'e' entrepreneur. One might even argue that Steve Case of AOL has more right to this position, as he has brought more people into contact with the Internet than anyone else.
However, to paraphrase Einstein, Jeff has only succeeded by standing on the shoulders of others, and I think that the final choice of the millenium really should have gone to one of these pioneers. In approximate order, I would suggest:
1. John Postel. Without his selfless dedication to managing the underlying administration of the Internet, the Internet would not be where it is today. His tragic death late last year has been perceived as owing in no small part to the personal energy he committed to the cause which has made Jeff Bezos a wealthy man
2. Tim Berners-Lee. As the acknowledged sole inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim has resisted what I suspect are hundreds of opportunities of lucrative employment, board positions, equity in in order that he can maintain an unbiased position as director of The World Wide Web Consortium -- the organisation devoted to managing the standards of the WWW.
3. Vint Cerf. As one of the inventors of TCP/IP - the underlying protocol which make the Internet happen - Vint is a tireless promoter of the Internet and the need for social parity and the proper balance of regulation. His behind-the-scenes influence at the highest circles of government and corporations has been instrumental in keeping the Internet on course and out of proprietary hands. "The Internet is for Everyone" according to the founder of the Internet Society, and a key player in the development of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the key body defining the technical standards driving the net.
An infuential publication such as Time needs to look behind the hype to find the real movers and shakers, and promote these people as the reason we - and Jeff - are where we are today.
Sincerly, -gordon
[have copied to members of the Internet Society for reference. My statements are purely personal however.]
(for reference: Internet developer since 1983, founder of perhaps the UK's longest established Internet consultancy, co-founder of Scotland and England chapters of Internet Society, founder of Scotland's Internet Exchange, EuroAmerican internet business entrepreneur)
-- Gordon Howell, President, Electronic Commerce One
They don't - all media control seems tied up in 5 large companies. The first amendment lets us have our conversation, but it does not force anyone to listen. I feel like the big media can and does force their ideals on people.
Another thought - why would a small group - other than p0rn0 or 'e-squatters' - want a letter off address? I think eToys should be more sensative.
About the 98% - I truely wonder how this is derived? In seconds of downtime?
How was the conference besides the innane name dropping. I am glad that everyone's heros haven't let 'fame' go to there heads and can still carry on a conversation and answer a few questions. To attend a show that was this size is a great oppurtunity to meet these people and ask 'dumb' questions. It is a blessing that many in the open source world cannot be readily id'd just in a glance.
That is true, the shopping channels sell PCs with AMD and non-techies shop there. However, these channels also sell cubic-zirconim plated poop. My point in that for most middle of the road buyers, they will lean toward Intel regardless. It is a litmus test by which non-techies judge other's PCs - "What speed 'Pentium' do you have?"
I am all for AMD - great chips - but their stock (pun intended) has been a dog.
Slashdot CA sounds like a feasible solution. Or at least a true open source.org CA who could provide these services - please don't read this as the.gov.
Verisign makes a move that would leave it in a very strong position in the market. Now down to GTE, Belsign and Verisign - with Verisign having established itself as the Wall Street darling. It will continue to move higher as word spreads.
Speed is one concern, but the image Intel (hear 4 notes) has built carries more clout that pure speed. Most people can not name another chip maker other than Intel. Market share is made by marketing in this case. Intel=Kleenix
Seems like this could turn out to be a great move for the USoA. Although a little cynical, I think that you have tapped a nerve that many feel is true...big brother USA and MS.
Slashdot Mirror
This is open to the public. I wonder how many points are really going to be represented. It seems that the speakers are all hands off or pro-government regulation. Is anyone thinking of attending? Would be nice to see a report on what occured.
ISOC CHAPTERS UPDATE
* D.C. CHAPTER'S PUBLIC MEETING ON PRIVACY
The Washington, D.C., chapter of the Internet Society will hold a public meeting on Internet privacy issues on 12 January 2000. Privacy is a broad topic that touches all of us in so many ways and raises lots of concerns. Some people are looking out for us, while others are looking at us. Is the government going through our e-mail and listening to all of our phone calls? If so, is that ok because of the threats of terrorism and gangsters? How much control should vendors have over the use and dissemination of information about us; how much should we? If you want to hear opinions on multiple sides of the issues, come to the meeting. It will be held from 7-9 p.m. at Booz-Allen at Tysons Corner, Allen Building, 8283 Greensboro Drive, McLean, VA. Speakers include Declan McCullagh, Washington bureau chief for Wired News; Kawika Daguio, Executive Vice President of the Finanicial Info Protection Association; and Mike Vatis, Chief of the National Infrastructure Protection Center. For more information on the meeting and for more detailed
biographies of the speakers see the dc chapter's site.
I guess it can tell the Jets from the grass.
How it Works
The central computer in the 1st & Ten system examines every frame of video in real time (i.e. 30 times per second) and determines which pixels to change to yellow. These are all the points in the image where an actual painted-on-the-field first down line would be visible, such as grass along the line that is not obscured by a player or referee. It determines which pixels to change based on very precise information about the camera's view, a 3D model of the field, which camera is on air, and a palette of colors for the field and another palette for players.
Pixels along the line with colors from the field palette are changed to yellow unless that color is also in the palette for players. Player colors and other colors not on the field palette are left unchanged. This makes the virtual line visible where the field is visible and hidden where the field is obscured, just as a real line would be.
Each camera in the 1st & Ten system, is instrumented with very precise encoders for pan, tilt, zoom, focus and extender (1x or 2x doubler). A computer at each camera reads the encoders and transmits these readings to the Sportvision production truck 30 times per second. Another computer in the truck gathers readings from all the cameras and transmits a consolidated data stream to the central computer. These readings and the 3D field model go into a geometrical calculation that determines which pixels in the video frame would be in an unobstructed view of a real first down line.
Yet another computer determines, also 30 times per second, which camera is tallied (on air). It does this by comparing the video streams from each of the 1st & Ten cameras to the program video. This computer allows for graphics, such as the constant time and score box, that are not in the camera view but are introduced into the program video. The result, camera 1, 2, 3 or none of them, is transmitted to the same computer that is consolidating data from the three cameras, and it adds tally to the data stream going to the central computer.
The final computer has only one simple but crucial task, draw the yellow line in video 60 times per second (every field, not just frame) and send that to a linear keyer to superimpose the yellow onto the program video.
Need more
Manipulation by the media is not new and it may only get worse. The media today controls information - period. What should make people even more fearful is the way in which people accept wha they see on TV as the truth without giving the story any critical thinking.
/. and those like it to encourage rational and critical thinking. Who wants to start a news /.?
A great way to see how you have been affected is to watch a major news organization cover a technology story. Often we can see so many holes and gloss overs because of our level of knowledge in the subject. However, one should realize that this is how they are presenting every story - there are major holes and a often a hightened sense of drama in order to sell the story. Look for this next time you read/watch a news story on a subject you are not so familiar with - watch them influence the suject matter experts they bring in to agree with outlandish ideas. The ones that return are the one who ar the most entertaining.
As far as image manipulation - this will only add to the arsenal. Real time reporting will look awesome - hurricanes will blow harder, the blood will be redder, the peacock (NBC) or the eye (CBS) will be super imposed on object behind the reports to increase the international/national impression of the reporter and their corporations.
God bless
Agree. Danger Will Robinson!
/. , and those like it which incorporate human input, are the last entries into the media world for a long time. But even when a story is 'broke' here, the rest of the world's population hears it spung and dumbed down by the like of TW and its peers.
It is bad when a few companies control so much of something. However, as far as how this affects both comapnies, AOL and TW benefit greatly. AOL gets the 'programing' and content (etc) while TW extends its market to half the expendable income in the world.
I hope for our sake and most likely the sake of our children that the FTC blocks this. TW already has the ability to implement mind control (in the form of repeating news) on the world. To put matters simply,
I was getting copied on the following through Internet Soc. I thought some of you might find it interesting. It starts with Gordon Howell, President, Electronic Commerce One writing the editors of TIME and then we see a reply from Vint Cerf. Pretty neat. Gordon also pushes for a deeper look into who has made a contribution to society. I think you all will enjoy this.....
:-)
.com entrpreneurs; he is more an example of 'right place, right time' with a huge PR achinge behind him than someone who has single-handedly really made a difference on the
First Vint:
------------
big smile
v
Now Gordon (you can take it from here):
-----------
At 10:46 AM 12/21/99 -0800, Gordon Howell wrote:
vint --
your modesty merely confirms my observations!
I have nothing but admiration (and a teensy bit of envy!) for Jeff and wouldn't diminish his achievements. My point is that this award sets
a milestone in history which will be looked at centuries hence. The long lens of history tells us that we don't by and large remember the names
of the entrepreneurs who made their fortunes digging the California gold, but we *do* remember that it was Sutter's Mill where it all happened. (of course you might argue back that TCP/IP could look a little different in a century...
However I bow to your gracious decline of the "People who really matter Man of the Year award" and suggest that we collectively create the "Geek of the millenium Award" and bestow it on Jon Postel.
Happy holidays to you. See you in the next century should the world still exist...
-gordon
Subject: Re: Time magazine "man of the year" choice
From: "vinton g. cerf"
Date: Mon, 20 Dec 1999 20:20:27 -0500
X-Message-Number: 2
Dear Gordon,
Your letter to the Time editor is most kind. One imagines that the conventional wisdom is that business leaders have the most significant visibility when it comes to perceived impact. One has only to see the frequency with which Bill Gates is mentioned to appreciate this perspective.
There is some truth to the idea that people who are able to unleash the energy of the business sector have the most significant impact on everyone else, even if they did not invent the technology that allows them to succeed. So on balance, I think it is not entirely inappropriate for Jeff Bezos to receive this recognition.
Vint Cerf
Wishing everyone: http://HaveAVeryMerryXmas.com/
__________________________________
Editor --
I must express my diasappointment (and that of many of my professional colleagues in the Internet industry) at the choice of Jeff Bezos as Man of
the Year.
While all credit is due Jeff for his vision and drive, and being an inspiration to all the other budding
internet. In common with what many people are doing right now, Jeff creamed one of the more obvious candidates for Internet e-commerce.
While my hat is off to a great web site and business, he has little more to offer than any number of other potential choices, if you are specifically looking for an 'e' entrepreneur. One might even argue that Steve Case of AOL has more right to this position, as he has brought more people into contact with the Internet than anyone else.
However, to paraphrase Einstein, Jeff has only succeeded by standing on the shoulders of others, and I think that the final choice of the millenium really should have gone to one of these pioneers. In approximate order, I would suggest:
1. John Postel. Without his selfless dedication to managing the underlying administration of the Internet, the Internet would not be where it is today. His tragic death late last year has been perceived as owing in no small part to the personal energy he committed to the cause which
has made Jeff Bezos a wealthy man
2. Tim Berners-Lee. As the acknowledged sole inventor of the World Wide Web, Tim has resisted what I suspect are hundreds of opportunities of lucrative employment, board positions, equity in in order that he can maintain an unbiased position as director of The World Wide Web Consortium -- the organisation devoted to managing the standards of the WWW.
3. Vint Cerf. As one of the inventors of TCP/IP - the underlying protocol which make the Internet happen - Vint is a tireless promoter of the Internet and the need for social parity and the proper balance of regulation. His behind-the-scenes influence at the highest circles of government and corporations has been instrumental in keeping the Internet on course and out of proprietary hands. "The Internet is for Everyone" according to the founder of the Internet Society, and a key player in the development of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF), the key body defining the technical standards driving the net.
An infuential publication such as Time needs to look behind the hype to find the real movers and shakers, and promote these people as the reason we - and Jeff - are where we are today.
Sincerly,
-gordon
[have copied to members of the Internet Society for reference. My
statements are purely personal however.]
(for reference: Internet developer since 1983, founder of perhaps the UK's longest established Internet consultancy, co-founder of Scotland and England chapters of Internet Society, founder of Scotland's Internet Exchange, EuroAmerican internet business entrepreneur)
--
Gordon Howell, President, Electronic Commerce One
They don't - all media control seems tied up in 5 large companies. The first amendment lets us have our conversation, but it does not force anyone to listen. I feel like the big media can and does force their ideals on people.
Another thought - why would a small group - other than p0rn0 or 'e-squatters' - want a letter off address? I think eToys should be more sensative.
About the 98% - I truely wonder how this is derived? In seconds of downtime?
How was the conference besides the innane name dropping. I am glad that everyone's heros haven't let 'fame' go to there heads and can still carry on a conversation and answer a few questions. To attend a show that was this size is a great oppurtunity to meet these people and ask 'dumb' questions. It is a blessing that many in the open source world cannot be readily id'd just in a glance.
Good point.
That is true, the shopping channels sell PCs with AMD and non-techies shop there. However, these channels also sell cubic-zirconim plated poop. My point in that for most middle of the road buyers, they will lean toward Intel regardless. It is a litmus test by which non-techies judge other's PCs - "What speed 'Pentium' do you have?"
I am all for AMD - great chips - but their stock (pun intended) has been a dog.
Slashdot CA sounds like a feasible solution. Or at least a true open source .org CA who could provide these services - please don't read this as the .gov.
Verisign makes a move that would leave it in a very strong position in the market. Now down to GTE, Belsign and Verisign - with Verisign having established itself as the Wall Street darling. It will continue to move higher as word spreads.
Speed is one concern, but the image Intel (hear 4 notes) has built carries more clout that pure speed. Most people can not name another chip maker other than Intel. Market share is made by marketing in this case. Intel=Kleenix
Seems like this could turn out to be a great move for the USoA. Although a little cynical, I think that you have tapped a nerve that many feel is true...big brother USA and MS.
MAL