Someone is going to have to explain to me how theaters are going to project this, because the DCI stereoscopic standard (pretty much THE stereoscopic projection standard if you're not IMAX), used by RealD and others, stores 24 FPS stereoscopic movies as 48 FPS and alternates left/right eyes. 48 FPS stereoscopic would mean handling 96 frames per second, which is far above the capacity of most already-installed digital cinema projectors.
I may be nitpicking, but ugh it's important... Cameras are only 2D. For good stereoscopic output, you need a stereoscopic camera. The recent "3D movies" are really called stereoscopic in the industry, "3D" is strictly a marketing term. 2D to 3D conversion, which adds a Z-buffer (the third dimension), still outputs a stereoscopic image in the end (which would be 3D stereoscopic, being generated from a 3D model).
Major citation needed, because the output of programs is not copyrighted. No compiled program, generated grammar, or otherwise, can be copyrighted by the generating program or its authors.
If you want to then debate the significance of it, then go look for and numbers and cite sources. But if I recall correctly, the peak of the Tea Party protests was through the year-long Obamacare bills and all their versions, but started with the Bush TARP bill or even around first stimulus (also Bush). The first "Tea Party Day" was 2007 December 16, I know.
Do you really think people are so stupid as to believe that would be the reason he vetoed it? No, it can't possibly be for some other unconstitutional provision that might even render the entire bill null and void?
If anything that's putting too much faith in Obama's ability to stay within the confines of the Constitution.
He is, he's a Green-party spread-the-wealth-hippie. That doesn't mean you have to be in favor of victimless crimes. I mean, what's the first things you think of when you think of "hippie"?
The president could direct the treasury to not allocate funds for unconstitutional uses -- the president can't modify legsliation (including a "line-tem veto"), but he can simply not enforce legislation, if done so in a constitutional manner (keeping within the equal protection of the laws clause and all that). In fact, there is only one thing the executive branch is actually mandated to do, and that's count the number of people in each state every decade. (Unfortunately for Ron Paul, the Federal Reserve funds itself without tax dollars, in fact it was the single most profitable corporation in the world if it were considered one. Ever wonder why it gets the very nicest building in the city?)
You can't actually use that to make the claim it has intrinsic value since we value things at the margin, and presently, paper currency makes a pretty lousy paper compared to the alternatives that we have, and also presently, nobody I know is anticipating using dollar bills after a nuclear winter. I don't know a person who would carry fewer US dollars if you couldn't use them for message passing, so there's no one that I know who values the typical US paper dollar for anything beyond a medium of exchange. If there is such a person, they would indeed see intrinsic value in the money. But for me and most people, this simply isn't the case.
And in any event, it should go without saying that people who want their currency to have intrinsic value mean that it also needs to have a dense enough value to run an economy on -- lead has "intrinsic value" but not enough to practically make a purchase with. (There are other properties of a good money too, it needs to be homogeneous, it needs to be divisible enough to let enable prices with a high enough resolution as needed, it can't be perishable or degrade, and so on.)
The fact that people value things sooner rather than later is perfectly fine, the future carries more uncertainty. It's not correct to say that we have no value for goods in the future. See the concept of time preference.
Intrinsic value means it has value despite it being a medium of exchange. Your typical US dollar bill has value only because it is a medium of exchange. This by itself isn't a bad thing, except it's often under control of government or central banking, who generally have a bad reputation of making their currency worthless within decades to months. Note that Bitcoin has no such central control, this is the selling point of it, it is truly a limited resource in the information world the same way that gold is a limited resource in the physical world.
Second, the Tea Party alternative to statism is corporatism which is even worse than statism.
Major Citation Needed because this is a whopper of a straw man. The Tea Party is the movement protesting the bailouts and stimulus (at least the later one), and the straight-to-pharma's-pockets-Obamacare bill... if that wasn't corporatism I don't know what is!
If you make someone ill with your poisoned food, you're criminally liable. No if's, and's, or but's. No CNN articles make that untrue. End of story.
Now again, go google "pollution private property" or something similar so you can stop making these stupid-ass straw-man arguments. Private property does NOT EVER mean that some other company can dump toxic chemicals on my land without permission. No if's, and's, or CNN articles about it. End of story.
What "tragedy of the commons" are you talking about?
This is the worst strawman I've ever seen, you need to stop stuffing words in people's mouths. I mean, of course emminent domain is theft. Those are precisely the things I'm arguing against!
Nobody is asking for the government to go into the farming business!
Nobody even implied that, which is the very reason I use it as an example, because it's one of the more overwhelmingly accepted notions, that placing food production in the public sector causes famines. Yet people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the same thing happens when we place product safety or healthcare, among other things, in the public sector. You realize the entire electronics industry isn't regulated for safety by the government? We have this little organization called Underwriters Laboratories instead, and that's just one example of industry organization. Even without industry certification like we have in electronics, companies are still liable if the safety or quality of their product has been misrepresented.
Wanting to dismantle the federal EPA is brain-dead stupid. Pollution doesn't honor state lines. Wanting to dismantle the FDA si similarly moronic as most of your food and medicine comes from out of state.
You're assuming that the EPA is the only way we can enforce property rights, which is completely ridiculous, and means you completely missed my point that a federal government executive agency is a completely inappropriate place to assign powers to and the very last place we should be creating these rules, in fact, it is one of the very reasons it's still allowed, by creating a tragedy of the commons! The solution is to simply enforce private property rights. But don't take my word for it, google "pollution private property" or something. As for the FDA, why are you complaining to the government? If you don't want to go on medication with nasty side-effects then don't buy the thing!
Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.
"Effectively owning people," what the hell? The market comes with very strong regulations: You can't defraud people, you can't pollute, you can't enslave people, you can't steal, and all the other stuff that comes with individual rights. Just because you're against the federal government regulating schools, healthcare, engaging in undeclared wars or the "drug war" (among other things that the Constitution doesn't permit the Federal government to do), in no way implies that you're against food safety or want people to be high all day. To the contrary, it implies that it's a completely inappropriate role of the federal government, just like the public sector is a completely inappropriate sector to place the production of food in!
I'm not making the claim the MPAA is competent, or even that it's easy to get a rating or break into the industry... Just that it's better than the alternative of government controls on movie theaters like we see in other countries, and TFA is about solving some of the same problems that exist in the game industry.
I don't think they are, I think it's fantastic that an industry can have it's own content ratings system. It is the one thing that the MPAA is good for, keeping the government out of the movie theaters. If anything, there's a complaint it's expensive, but TFA is about solving this very problem by letting publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire instead of submitting demos and clips for review.
Re:Just seems like a well thought out list
on
The RMS Tour Rider
·
· Score: 2
Um, that's not what equal means, all you are doing is proving the fact that all men are not identical which is an entirely different notion altogether, so step away from the chalkboard, we aren't in math class here. Jefferson was an agricultural scientist and one of the top scientists of the day, you think when writing that he really couldn't comprehend the notion that people are dissimilar? And what more, at the same time he was writing that, Adam Smith was writing about specialization and how we're all unique, and it's those differences of ours that in fact make a modern economy possible: If we were all identical, there would be no comparative advantage, and no reason to trade. Instead, we are equals, and we all have the same rights that other people have no right to infringe upon.
The problem with RMS is that software is not something that is free or unfree, only people are be free or unfree. He's right that patents and copyright licenses restrict my right to handle software, even if I own it. He's wrong when he thinks he can do the exact same thing and threaten to stop my right to redistribute it just because I don't meet his demands that I include the source code, or nothing at all. Unfortunately, many software developers have to take "nothing at all" because of those demands.
But economics makes no assumption that people are rational. The law of supply, the law of demand, the law of diminishing marginal utility, the law of increasing marginal cost, are all logical, provable consequences to act of action, "rational" or not.
Buying a house you can't afford might not be rational, but it doesn't change the fact that interest rates will go up if enough people do it, materially limiting how many people can buy houses. The problem was that the Fed fixes prices, specifically of the interest rate (the price of time), so borrowers never saw the increase in the cost. And what happens when you set price ceilings and floors? You get shortages and surpluses. Exactly what we saw in the market for loanable funds.
That means they can coin money and assign it a dollar value. Nowhere in the constitution does it even say they can create legal tender. The states normally would be able to due to the 10th amendment, however even they too are prohibited from creating a legal tender that's not of silver or gold.
The founders were pretty clear after their experience with the Continental Dollar that the US Constitution does NOT grant the ability to print money. There's dozens of quotes like this most famous one by Thomas Jefferson:
I sincerely believe... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity under the name of funding is but swindling futurity on a large scale.
but is it well established that a grant to the public domain actually works?
That's 100% FUD. There's zero reason any court would have any reason to interpret public domain as meaning anything other than "you can't sue for damages."
Oh no, you just called a group of people a scary derogatory name, you win the argument. I don't even know what the argument was, but you sure won it alright!
P.S. The USPS doesn't use tax money to fund operations and hasn't for a good while now
(1) Star Trek was filmed on film so it's just a matter of re-scanning the old negatives. (2) I wouldn't mind seeing a 16:9 AR IF that's how it was filmed, but chances are they were probably using the full 35mm frame, meaning to get 16:9 or wider like you see in a theater (1.85:1 or 2.40:1) you would have to crop the frame or use anamorphic lenses. And cropping down a scene shot for the full frame is just bad.
Slashdot Mirror
Someone is going to have to explain to me how theaters are going to project this, because the DCI stereoscopic standard (pretty much THE stereoscopic projection standard if you're not IMAX), used by RealD and others, stores 24 FPS stereoscopic movies as 48 FPS and alternates left/right eyes. 48 FPS stereoscopic would mean handling 96 frames per second, which is far above the capacity of most already-installed digital cinema projectors.
I may be nitpicking, but ugh it's important... Cameras are only 2D. For good stereoscopic output, you need a stereoscopic camera. The recent "3D movies" are really called stereoscopic in the industry, "3D" is strictly a marketing term. 2D to 3D conversion, which adds a Z-buffer (the third dimension), still outputs a stereoscopic image in the end (which would be 3D stereoscopic, being generated from a 3D model).
Major citation needed, because the output of programs is not copyrighted. No compiled program, generated grammar, or otherwise, can be copyrighted by the generating program or its authors.
Answer the question.
If you want to then debate the significance of it, then go look for and numbers and cite sources. But if I recall correctly, the peak of the Tea Party protests was through the year-long Obamacare bills and all their versions, but started with the Bush TARP bill or even around first stimulus (also Bush). The first "Tea Party Day" was 2007 December 16, I know.
Do you really think people are so stupid as to believe that would be the reason he vetoed it? No, it can't possibly be for some other unconstitutional provision that might even render the entire bill null and void?
If anything that's putting too much faith in Obama's ability to stay within the confines of the Constitution.
He is, he's a Green-party spread-the-wealth-hippie. That doesn't mean you have to be in favor of victimless crimes. I mean, what's the first things you think of when you think of "hippie"?
The president could direct the treasury to not allocate funds for unconstitutional uses -- the president can't modify legsliation (including a "line-tem veto"), but he can simply not enforce legislation, if done so in a constitutional manner (keeping within the equal protection of the laws clause and all that). In fact, there is only one thing the executive branch is actually mandated to do, and that's count the number of people in each state every decade. (Unfortunately for Ron Paul, the Federal Reserve funds itself without tax dollars, in fact it was the single most profitable corporation in the world if it were considered one. Ever wonder why it gets the very nicest building in the city?)
Women can't afford to work for low wages? As compared to what? What is the opportunity cost of working as a school teacher here?
You can't actually use that to make the claim it has intrinsic value since we value things at the margin, and presently, paper currency makes a pretty lousy paper compared to the alternatives that we have, and also presently, nobody I know is anticipating using dollar bills after a nuclear winter. I don't know a person who would carry fewer US dollars if you couldn't use them for message passing, so there's no one that I know who values the typical US paper dollar for anything beyond a medium of exchange. If there is such a person, they would indeed see intrinsic value in the money. But for me and most people, this simply isn't the case.
And in any event, it should go without saying that people who want their currency to have intrinsic value mean that it also needs to have a dense enough value to run an economy on -- lead has "intrinsic value" but not enough to practically make a purchase with. (There are other properties of a good money too, it needs to be homogeneous, it needs to be divisible enough to let enable prices with a high enough resolution as needed, it can't be perishable or degrade, and so on.)
The fact that people value things sooner rather than later is perfectly fine, the future carries more uncertainty. It's not correct to say that we have no value for goods in the future. See the concept of time preference.
Intrinsic value means it has value despite it being a medium of exchange. Your typical US dollar bill has value only because it is a medium of exchange. This by itself isn't a bad thing, except it's often under control of government or central banking, who generally have a bad reputation of making their currency worthless within decades to months. Note that Bitcoin has no such central control, this is the selling point of it, it is truly a limited resource in the information world the same way that gold is a limited resource in the physical world.
Now who said philosophy was a bad thing?
Second, the Tea Party alternative to statism is corporatism which is even worse than statism.
Major Citation Needed because this is a whopper of a straw man. The Tea Party is the movement protesting the bailouts and stimulus (at least the later one), and the straight-to-pharma's-pockets-Obamacare bill... if that wasn't corporatism I don't know what is!
If you make someone ill with your poisoned food, you're criminally liable. No if's, and's, or but's. No CNN articles make that untrue. End of story.
Now again, go google "pollution private property" or something similar so you can stop making these stupid-ass straw-man arguments. Private property does NOT EVER mean that some other company can dump toxic chemicals on my land without permission. No if's, and's, or CNN articles about it. End of story.
What "tragedy of the commons" are you talking about?
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=tragedy+of+the+commons Rinse, repeat for all the other questions you have about the formally defined economics terms that I use. Got it?
While I'm at it: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=straw+man Are we getting the picture now?
This is the worst strawman I've ever seen, you need to stop stuffing words in people's mouths. I mean, of course emminent domain is theft. Those are precisely the things I'm arguing against!
Nobody is asking for the government to go into the farming business!
Nobody even implied that, which is the very reason I use it as an example, because it's one of the more overwhelmingly accepted notions, that placing food production in the public sector causes famines. Yet people can't seem to wrap their heads around the fact that the same thing happens when we place product safety or healthcare, among other things, in the public sector. You realize the entire electronics industry isn't regulated for safety by the government? We have this little organization called Underwriters Laboratories instead, and that's just one example of industry organization. Even without industry certification like we have in electronics, companies are still liable if the safety or quality of their product has been misrepresented.
Wanting to dismantle the federal EPA is brain-dead stupid. Pollution doesn't honor state lines. Wanting to dismantle the FDA si similarly moronic as most of your food and medicine comes from out of state.
You're assuming that the EPA is the only way we can enforce property rights, which is completely ridiculous, and means you completely missed my point that a federal government executive agency is a completely inappropriate place to assign powers to and the very last place we should be creating these rules, in fact, it is one of the very reasons it's still allowed, by creating a tragedy of the commons! The solution is to simply enforce private property rights. But don't take my word for it, google "pollution private property" or something. As for the FDA, why are you complaining to the government? If you don't want to go on medication with nasty side-effects then don't buy the thing!
Ron Paul is the candidate with the most, erm, independently minded supporters you'll find, and I dare you to name any base that knows more about US history back to Woodrow Wilson or Thomas Jefferson, about monetary and fiscal policy, or about foreign policy. He's the one candidate who's actually changed the dialog of the country and sustained it for years, that says something about the issues he speaks on.
"Effectively owning people," what the hell? The market comes with very strong regulations: You can't defraud people, you can't pollute, you can't enslave people, you can't steal, and all the other stuff that comes with individual rights. Just because you're against the federal government regulating schools, healthcare, engaging in undeclared wars or the "drug war" (among other things that the Constitution doesn't permit the Federal government to do), in no way implies that you're against food safety or want people to be high all day. To the contrary, it implies that it's a completely inappropriate role of the federal government, just like the public sector is a completely inappropriate sector to place the production of food in!
I'm not making the claim the MPAA is competent, or even that it's easy to get a rating or break into the industry... Just that it's better than the alternative of government controls on movie theaters like we see in other countries, and TFA is about solving some of the same problems that exist in the game industry.
I don't think they are, I think it's fantastic that an industry can have it's own content ratings system. It is the one thing that the MPAA is good for, keeping the government out of the movie theaters. If anything, there's a complaint it's expensive, but TFA is about solving this very problem by letting publishers fill out a detailed questionnaire instead of submitting demos and clips for review.
Um, that's not what equal means, all you are doing is proving the fact that all men are not identical which is an entirely different notion altogether, so step away from the chalkboard, we aren't in math class here. Jefferson was an agricultural scientist and one of the top scientists of the day, you think when writing that he really couldn't comprehend the notion that people are dissimilar? And what more, at the same time he was writing that, Adam Smith was writing about specialization and how we're all unique, and it's those differences of ours that in fact make a modern economy possible: If we were all identical, there would be no comparative advantage, and no reason to trade. Instead, we are equals, and we all have the same rights that other people have no right to infringe upon.
The problem with RMS is that software is not something that is free or unfree, only people are be free or unfree. He's right that patents and copyright licenses restrict my right to handle software, even if I own it. He's wrong when he thinks he can do the exact same thing and threaten to stop my right to redistribute it just because I don't meet his demands that I include the source code, or nothing at all. Unfortunately, many software developers have to take "nothing at all" because of those demands.
But economics makes no assumption that people are rational. The law of supply, the law of demand, the law of diminishing marginal utility, the law of increasing marginal cost, are all logical, provable consequences to act of action, "rational" or not.
Buying a house you can't afford might not be rational, but it doesn't change the fact that interest rates will go up if enough people do it, materially limiting how many people can buy houses. The problem was that the Fed fixes prices, specifically of the interest rate (the price of time), so borrowers never saw the increase in the cost. And what happens when you set price ceilings and floors? You get shortages and surpluses. Exactly what we saw in the market for loanable funds.
That means they can coin money and assign it a dollar value. Nowhere in the constitution does it even say they can create legal tender. The states normally would be able to due to the 10th amendment, however even they too are prohibited from creating a legal tender that's not of silver or gold.
The founders were pretty clear after their experience with the Continental Dollar that the US Constitution does NOT grant the ability to print money. There's dozens of quotes like this most famous one by Thomas Jefferson:
If the idiot name-calling didn't win people over, accusing of people holding and largely standing by an entirely correct ideology certainly did.
but is it well established that a grant to the public domain actually works?
That's 100% FUD. There's zero reason any court would have any reason to interpret public domain as meaning anything other than "you can't sue for damages."
Oh no, you just called a group of people a scary derogatory name, you win the argument. I don't even know what the argument was, but you sure won it alright!
P.S. The USPS doesn't use tax money to fund operations and hasn't for a good while now
(1) Star Trek was filmed on film so it's just a matter of re-scanning the old negatives.
(2) I wouldn't mind seeing a 16:9 AR IF that's how it was filmed, but chances are they were probably using the full 35mm frame, meaning to get 16:9 or wider like you see in a theater (1.85:1 or 2.40:1) you would have to crop the frame or use anamorphic lenses. And cropping down a scene shot for the full frame is just bad.