These numbers are meaningless. Take a look at this paragraph:
The Honeynet network, the network used to capture data, is a basic network of commonly used operating systems, such as Red Hat Linux or Windows NT, in a default configuration. No attempts were made to broadcast the identity of the Honeynet, nor was any attempt made to lure attackers. Theoretically this site should see very little activity, as they have little value. However, attack they do, and in extremely aggressive manner.
Even though they made "no attempt to publicize" it, they also made no attempt to hide it. Crackers would surely figure out very fast machines with IP address in a certain range are part of this project. Boxes that are set up as some sort of a "challenge" always receive more attacks than ordinary machines. Therefore, these numbers are skewed.
A better project would be one that had a lot of machines from various volunteers all over the internet set up and collecting statistics. That way, no one could tell just by looking at the IP address whether a machine was part of the project or not. A more random sampling like that would give a much more accurate picture of how often the average machine-on-net can expect to be attacked.
There are a few arcade games out there that already have motion-sensing interfaces. There's a boxing game, and a police shoot 'em up that require the player to move and duck as they are playing.
That's one area where arcade games still have an advantage over home games. They can more easily have unique controllers and interfaces that would require a home player to buy special equipment to have.
That sounds like it might be akin to CD players vs. turntables.
No it doesn't. The idea that CRTs are better than LCDs for color is supported by cold hard facts. Even a cheap-o CRT has better delta-E values than the LCDs in that test.
Next thing you know, we'll be saying CRTs have "warmer" color.
Yeah, but a lot of the digital channels I've seen on digital cable systems have so much compression it's almost unwatchable. Some of them are so bad they look like a ultra-low bit rate RealVideo stream. How do you put up with that?
A lot of the big Pioneer and Mitsubishi rear-projection TVs support the 1080i format. The problem is with these super-expensive flat-panel plasma and LCD displays. Manufacturing difficulties prevent them from reaching full HDTV resolution at the moment. But direct-view and rear-projection CRT systems can do it just fine, even if they take up more space.
Don't get me wrong, I applaud your work. Everybody's a critic -- especially me.:-)
Actually, I think all you have to do is add a thin black line as a border between the panels, and that will keep the messages separate. It's mostly the angle of that photograph that makes the two panels look like they are actually side-by-side. If I saw it in real life it probably would be easier to tell the two different panels apart, but a line separating the two certainly helps. Or better yet, leave a little white space around the edges of each panel to act as a border. It will make the text a little smaller, but it will actually be easier to read.
You sign is actually not bad. I'm sorry I lumped you in with those guys from the Stanford DMCA protest -- my beef is mostly with them. There are pictures available on the web of that protest. Unfortunately, me and my signs are not in any of them. I was rather upset that someone seemed to have almost on purpose framed their photograph so that the people with illegible signs are clearly visible, but I am just barely out of the frame. I had some good signs, too!
For the Stanford protest, I tried to keep it simple. I had two identical, flat signs. On one side, it simply said "DMCA", with a circle and a line through it drawn on top of it. (I made the circle and line a 75% gray, so that the text "DMCA" was still legible.) On the opposite side it said "Keep fair use legal!" 96 point Arial Black. I will freely admit that I used MS Word on a Mac and an 11x17 printer at work to make the sign (pasted onto some cardboard I got from the grocery store). Even though MS is a supporter of the DMCA, which I was protesting against, I just didn't see myself as a hypocrite. I realize some people do have a problem with that sort of thing, but it's not like I went out and bought some software from MS just to use for that purpose. And it was impossible to tell from the sign how it was made. (I imagine the same graphics could have been done in the GIMP as well, but I am a little unfamiliar with it, and didn't have any *nix machines available at the time.) Overall, I'd say my signs were pretty effective. The head of the US Copyright office looked right at me when she said "looking in the audience, I can see that some people are not happy about it [the DMCA], but nevertheless, it has gone into effect..."
I haven't participated in the Dimitri protests yet, but I probably will soon. Anyway, keep up the good work, and sorry if I sounded too harsh!
Jeez, are all open source folks incapable of making good protest signs?
Take this sign for example. At first glance, it looks almost like it says "Down with Dimitri!" Yeah, yeah... I know what it really says, but you can see how it's a little unclear. A lot of people will end up doing a double-take when they first see it.
And there are the doofi who showed up at the DMCA protest at Stanford last year. They had these signs that said "I don't care for the DMCA, reverse engineering is A-OK". Fine and dandy, if a little verbose -- but the trouble was, all the text was written way too small for anyone to read from a distance, except for the words "DMCA" and "A-OK". So it looked as though they were in favor of it! D'oh!
Why can't people make clear, easy-to-read signs when protesting?
Yup, I'm clear on how IMAX's format is quite different from the 5 perf 70mm.
Okay, sorry I doubted you. It's only been a few years since 5-perf 70mm saw widespread use, but as they say "out of sight, out of mind". I've actually had people say to me "70mm? You mean IMAX?" Gah!
It was funny to watch a movie on the screen in "letterbox" mode, though. : )
Yeah, I know what you mean. But on the other hand, it's nice not to have to worry about having part of the image cropped by the masking; some theaters are really bad about lining that up.
Did they try to fill the whole width of the screen? Some of the 35mm-on-IMAX-screen presentations I've seen have been a little dark because they tried to blow it up too big -- and those were 2.39:1 format. I'd hate to see a 1.85:1 film projected at 70 feet wide. 35mm can only go up to about 7000 watts before causing heat damage to the film, and that won't really fill a screen the size of most IMAX iinstallations without getting really dim.
Recently I've heard about some "enhanced" prints being run off with the intention of being shown on an IMAX screen. The "enhanced" part of it being that they're just like drive-in prints -- printed a couple of stops lighter than usual in order to make up for lower light levels. That might help, but if they really cared about quality they'd run off some 70mm prints.
The unions for grocery store workers aren't totally gone. The Safeway workers in my area went on strike recently. I think they got their half-cent per hour raise or whatever and went back to work already. Unions can get what they want as long as they aim low.
I do wish that they had a 70mm print available. Then we could REALLY pick nits about the textures!
I don't think 70mm would be necessary. I've looked all over, and I can't seem to find any source that actually mentions what resolution the FF movie was rendered at, but I would guess it was approximately 2000 pixels across the width of the frame (the de-facto standard "2K" resolution used for most feature film CG these days). Given the extremely high resolution of film, I'd bet you're already seeing pretty much every last pixel of the images just by watching it on a 35mm print with good focus and brightness. (Although it really does depend on how good a job they did transferring the movie to film, and how good the projection equipment was at the theater you went to.)
By the way -- you are aware of the difference between 70mm and IMAX, right? It's true that IMAX uses 70mm film, but it's a very specialized format that runs the film horizontally at 15 perforations per frame (with a TV-like aspect ratio of about 1.4:1). Usually, when someone says "70mm", they are referring to 5-perf vertical 70mm (aspect ratio 2.20:1).
I really miss the days of 5-perf 70mm. With its 6-channel sound, it was a near-perfect audio-visual system, even if by the time by it died almost all material shown in it was blown-up from 35mm negatives. I'm worried about the future, too. People are really hyped about DLP, but they don't seem concerned about resolution. If someone doesn't come along soon and give TI some competition, we'll be stuck watching 1280x1024 for the next 20-30 years. That's less than HDTV resolution!
Yes it does. And it should be noted this particular argument was started by someone referring to environmentalists as "green freaks".
Re:Not interesting not Entertainment
on
Review: A.I.
·
· Score: 1
Take a look at this NYTimes article from a couple of years ago about the then in-progress project. It's surprising how closley this movie follows what's described.
Even the ending which everyone seems to hate so much is attributed to Kubrick.
I said to my wife as we walked back to the car after seeing AI that the Kubrick story was clearly the first 2/3, and the Speilberg influence was unmistakable for the last 1/3.
Kubrick, however, wanted a coda in which the new race of robots, because of a technological limitation, cannot keep the mother alive after reviving her. The movie would end with David in his mother's bedroom, watching her slowly disappear.
So if you don't like the ending, blame Kubrick, not Spielberg.
Yes! I remember that. "Space: 1999" was fun when I was a kid. The episode with the monster that would eat people by sucking them under it scared the crap out of me!
Now that's good news. That was the first thing that popped into my head -- "please let these be the real versions and not the shortened syndicated versions!" But... where did you read that? I haven't found any news articles that mention it.
Harry at AICN waxes effusive and gushingly positive
Wow! Stop the presses!
Harry gives almost every movie a "gushingly positive" review. Otherwise, the studios wouldn't continue to let him see movies before they are released. As it is, they sometimes forbid him to say anything unless they are sure he is going to say something positive (his preview of the last year's Grinch movie is one case in point -- he admits Ron Howard & company only gave him permission to "go public" with a review of an early rough cut after they were sure it was going to be a positive review).
The guy was incoporated into the Hollywood hype machine long ago. He's nothing but an amateur PR-man. The best part (at least as far as the studios are concerned) is that he works for peanuts. No big salary and cushy office. Just some graft. You know, a few trips out to see screenings, a few free video copies of movies, a few little souveniers here and there. That's all it takes. He's cheap.
Yep, that would work. If the camera has a grayscale mode, it would probably help to set that when taking the original pictures.
Note that the 1909 photography described in the article used optics to split the image in-camera, so it's just a single moment in time. He didn't have to take three successive shots.
Also, the 3-strip Technicolor process for "Gone with the Wind" and "Wizard of Oz" had three strips of B&W film in the camera, but the final prints were a single strip. Technicolor had what they called the "dye-transfer" process which placed successive layers of dye on top of a strip of B&W film to produce the color image. Sort of a CMYK printing process, except it was RGBK. It was a great process that produced some very vivid colors, and because the dyes were more or less permanent inks, the prints lasted for a long time without fading.
Technicolor recently revived the dye-transfer printing process for feature film releases. If you saw "Family Man" last year, there was a chance you might have seen a dye-transfer print. (Look for the reel-change marks in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. On a dye-transfer print, they are translucent green, instead of the normal black.) I also read a news article that said the re-release of "Apocalypse Now" later this year will be dye-transfer. I'm really looking forward to that.
As for established players, they've got the advantage of being established, if they can't adapt, let 'em sink. Most Republicans feel this way.
"Most Republicans". Yep, except for the ones who actually hold office. For them, protecting established players is the sole purpose of their existence... especially when they consider how much money in bribe-- er, "campaign contributions", they've received from those established players.
Same is true for Democrats too, so don't even bother responding just to point that out. Corruption is bi-partisan.
Okay, so maybe I should have read the article. It's not a "visible" watermark, it's a data watermark. They're only talking about "1 or 2 bits" per second of video. Sounds like it's merely designed to prevent people from creating bit-for-bit copies with DVD-recorders.
You could still rip-and-recompress all you want. Interesting how they don't seem worried about stopping "DivX;-)". (Or maybe they are, and they are planning to introduce a separate, "visible" watermarking scheme later on.)
Oh, and I can't believe the article quoted Bill Hunt of "The Digital Bits". That guy is an idiot, and so are all of the people who help write the reviews on his site. Any technical information that comes from him is sheer guesswork. He doesn't have a clue.
I can tell you without even reading the article: Just like with the Verance audio watermark, it's going to be designed to survive at least ripping/recompression, and probably analog copying, too.
In other words, you'll be able to see it. And unlike Macrovision, it will be in-band, so even if you remove it, the information it covers up will still be gone.
Slashdot Mirror
A better project would be one that had a lot of machines from various volunteers all over the internet set up and collecting statistics. That way, no one could tell just by looking at the IP address whether a machine was part of the project or not. A more random sampling like that would give a much more accurate picture of how often the average machine-on-net can expect to be attacked.
That's one area where arcade games still have an advantage over home games. They can more easily have unique controllers and interfaces that would require a home player to buy special equipment to have.
No it doesn't. The idea that CRTs are better than LCDs for color is supported by cold hard facts. Even a cheap-o CRT has better delta-E values than the LCDs in that test.
Next thing you know, we'll be saying CRTs have "warmer" color.
No, just considerably more accurate color.
Yeah, but a lot of the digital channels I've seen on digital cable systems have so much compression it's almost unwatchable. Some of them are so bad they look like a ultra-low bit rate RealVideo stream. How do you put up with that?
A lot of the big Pioneer and Mitsubishi rear-projection TVs support the 1080i format. The problem is with these super-expensive flat-panel plasma and LCD displays. Manufacturing difficulties prevent them from reaching full HDTV resolution at the moment. But direct-view and rear-projection CRT systems can do it just fine, even if they take up more space.
Actually, I think all you have to do is add a thin black line as a border between the panels, and that will keep the messages separate. It's mostly the angle of that photograph that makes the two panels look like they are actually side-by-side. If I saw it in real life it probably would be easier to tell the two different panels apart, but a line separating the two certainly helps. Or better yet, leave a little white space around the edges of each panel to act as a border. It will make the text a little smaller, but it will actually be easier to read.
You sign is actually not bad. I'm sorry I lumped you in with those guys from the Stanford DMCA protest -- my beef is mostly with them. There are pictures available on the web of that protest. Unfortunately, me and my signs are not in any of them. I was rather upset that someone seemed to have almost on purpose framed their photograph so that the people with illegible signs are clearly visible, but I am just barely out of the frame. I had some good signs, too!
For the Stanford protest, I tried to keep it simple. I had two identical, flat signs. On one side, it simply said "DMCA", with a circle and a line through it drawn on top of it. (I made the circle and line a 75% gray, so that the text "DMCA" was still legible.) On the opposite side it said "Keep fair use legal!" 96 point Arial Black. I will freely admit that I used MS Word on a Mac and an 11x17 printer at work to make the sign (pasted onto some cardboard I got from the grocery store). Even though MS is a supporter of the DMCA, which I was protesting against, I just didn't see myself as a hypocrite. I realize some people do have a problem with that sort of thing, but it's not like I went out and bought some software from MS just to use for that purpose. And it was impossible to tell from the sign how it was made. (I imagine the same graphics could have been done in the GIMP as well, but I am a little unfamiliar with it, and didn't have any *nix machines available at the time.) Overall, I'd say my signs were pretty effective. The head of the US Copyright office looked right at me when she said "looking in the audience, I can see that some people are not happy about it [the DMCA], but nevertheless, it has gone into effect..."
I haven't participated in the Dimitri protests yet, but I probably will soon. Anyway, keep up the good work, and sorry if I sounded too harsh!
Take this sign for example. At first glance, it looks almost like it says "Down with Dimitri!" Yeah, yeah ... I know what it really says, but you can see how it's a little unclear. A lot of people will end up doing a double-take when they first see it.
And there are the doofi who showed up at the DMCA protest at Stanford last year. They had these signs that said "I don't care for the DMCA, reverse engineering is A-OK". Fine and dandy, if a little verbose -- but the trouble was, all the text was written way too small for anyone to read from a distance, except for the words "DMCA" and "A-OK". So it looked as though they were in favor of it! D'oh!
Why can't people make clear, easy-to-read signs when protesting?
Okay, sorry I doubted you. It's only been a few years since 5-perf 70mm saw widespread use, but as they say "out of sight, out of mind". I've actually had people say to me "70mm? You mean IMAX?" Gah!
It was funny to watch a movie on the screen in "letterbox" mode, though. : )
Yeah, I know what you mean. But on the other hand, it's nice not to have to worry about having part of the image cropped by the masking; some theaters are really bad about lining that up.
Did they try to fill the whole width of the screen? Some of the 35mm-on-IMAX-screen presentations I've seen have been a little dark because they tried to blow it up too big -- and those were 2.39:1 format. I'd hate to see a 1.85:1 film projected at 70 feet wide. 35mm can only go up to about 7000 watts before causing heat damage to the film, and that won't really fill a screen the size of most IMAX iinstallations without getting really dim.
Recently I've heard about some "enhanced" prints being run off with the intention of being shown on an IMAX screen. The "enhanced" part of it being that they're just like drive-in prints -- printed a couple of stops lighter than usual in order to make up for lower light levels. That might help, but if they really cared about quality they'd run off some 70mm prints.
How could you not know about it? With the "please donate" links on the front page -- it's pretty hard to miss!
The unions for grocery store workers aren't totally gone. The Safeway workers in my area went on strike recently. I think they got their half-cent per hour raise or whatever and went back to work already. Unions can get what they want as long as they aim low.
I don't think 70mm would be necessary. I've looked all over, and I can't seem to find any source that actually mentions what resolution the FF movie was rendered at, but I would guess it was approximately 2000 pixels across the width of the frame (the de-facto standard "2K" resolution used for most feature film CG these days). Given the extremely high resolution of film, I'd bet you're already seeing pretty much every last pixel of the images just by watching it on a 35mm print with good focus and brightness. (Although it really does depend on how good a job they did transferring the movie to film, and how good the projection equipment was at the theater you went to.)
By the way -- you are aware of the difference between 70mm and IMAX, right? It's true that IMAX uses 70mm film, but it's a very specialized format that runs the film horizontally at 15 perforations per frame (with a TV-like aspect ratio of about 1.4:1). Usually, when someone says "70mm", they are referring to 5-perf vertical 70mm (aspect ratio 2.20:1).
I really miss the days of 5-perf 70mm. With its 6-channel sound, it was a near-perfect audio-visual system, even if by the time by it died almost all material shown in it was blown-up from 35mm negatives. I'm worried about the future, too. People are really hyped about DLP, but they don't seem concerned about resolution. If someone doesn't come along soon and give TI some competition, we'll be stuck watching 1280x1024 for the next 20-30 years. That's less than HDTV resolution!
Yes it does. And it should be noted this particular argument was started by someone referring to environmentalists as "green freaks".
Even the ending which everyone seems to hate so much is attributed to Kubrick.
That's what I at first thought, too. But according to this part of the Kubrick FAQ, the ending is pretty much what Kubrick wanted ... (SPOILERS AHEAD):
So if you don't like the ending, blame Kubrick, not Spielberg.
Yes! I remember that. "Space: 1999" was fun when I was a kid. The episode with the monster that would eat people by sucking them under it scared the crap out of me!
Now that's good news. That was the first thing that popped into my head -- "please let these be the real versions and not the shortened syndicated versions!" But ... where did you read that? I haven't found any news articles that mention it.
Well, the movie never says it does. Duchovony's character just uses that to establish that the organisms are alien.
Wow! Stop the presses!
Harry gives almost every movie a "gushingly positive" review. Otherwise, the studios wouldn't continue to let him see movies before they are released. As it is, they sometimes forbid him to say anything unless they are sure he is going to say something positive (his preview of the last year's Grinch movie is one case in point -- he admits Ron Howard & company only gave him permission to "go public" with a review of an early rough cut after they were sure it was going to be a positive review).
The guy was incoporated into the Hollywood hype machine long ago. He's nothing but an amateur PR-man. The best part (at least as far as the studios are concerned) is that he works for peanuts. No big salary and cushy office. Just some graft. You know, a few trips out to see screenings, a few free video copies of movies, a few little souveniers here and there. That's all it takes. He's cheap.
"U-571" was indeed a disgusting perversion of history. But what, pray tell, was wrong with "Saving Private Ryan"?
Note that the 1909 photography described in the article used optics to split the image in-camera, so it's just a single moment in time. He didn't have to take three successive shots.
Also, the 3-strip Technicolor process for "Gone with the Wind" and "Wizard of Oz" had three strips of B&W film in the camera, but the final prints were a single strip. Technicolor had what they called the "dye-transfer" process which placed successive layers of dye on top of a strip of B&W film to produce the color image. Sort of a CMYK printing process, except it was RGBK. It was a great process that produced some very vivid colors, and because the dyes were more or less permanent inks, the prints lasted for a long time without fading.
Technicolor recently revived the dye-transfer printing process for feature film releases. If you saw "Family Man" last year, there was a chance you might have seen a dye-transfer print. (Look for the reel-change marks in the upper right-hand corner of the screen. On a dye-transfer print, they are translucent green, instead of the normal black.) I also read a news article that said the re-release of "Apocalypse Now" later this year will be dye-transfer. I'm really looking forward to that.
Well, they better remember to make sure the plane is waterproof!
"Most Republicans". Yep, except for the ones who actually hold office. For them, protecting established players is the sole purpose of their existence ... especially when they consider how much money in bribe-- er, "campaign contributions", they've received from those established players.
Same is true for Democrats too, so don't even bother responding just to point that out. Corruption is bi-partisan.
You could still rip-and-recompress all you want. Interesting how they don't seem worried about stopping "DivX ;-)". (Or maybe they are, and they are planning to introduce a separate, "visible" watermarking scheme later on.)
Oh, and I can't believe the article quoted Bill Hunt of "The Digital Bits". That guy is an idiot, and so are all of the people who help write the reviews on his site. Any technical information that comes from him is sheer guesswork. He doesn't have a clue.
In other words, you'll be able to see it. And unlike Macrovision, it will be in-band, so even if you remove it, the information it covers up will still be gone.
Lovely.
Yes, and British cars are known for their reliability!