You wouldn't, because by asking this question you betray that you undoubtedly have never shot a video before.
DSLRs have some great features, and potential features if you need them. 0. high quality and cheaper cost than a broadcast quality 2k camera. 1. interchangeable lenses. 2. easy to mount nearly anywhere. 3. large sensor can give a shallow DOF when needed, and decent low-light ability. 4. some can shoot raw footage, when needed. 5. can use comparatively inexpensive vintage lenses. 6. easily maintained and replaced. 7. high enough quality for movies, and getting better. 8. well-supported by 3rd parties. 9. often have very usable ISOs, esp with a little bit of noise reduction (of which there's exactly one good program). 10. have spawned camera offshoots based on DSLR video which is closer to a movie camera/dslr cross. 11. can be operated remotely over usb or wifi. This includes focus pulling. 12. firmware can be hacked on some, unlocking even more features. 13. can be used as a crash camera for larger budgets. 14. can be housed for underwater shooting.
Some of the problems with DSLRs for filming. Not all will apply on any particular shoot. -1. large sensor can be a big hindrance when you need a large DOF, and requires a lot more light than a small sensor. -2. most movie modes are afterthoughts. Very few decent still cameras also have decent movie modes. -3. very few have any sort of usable auto-focus, although some can lock on and track. Autofocus pulling usually sucks. -4. very few have genlock, SDI, or aux i/o or undecorated uncompressed output -5. most outputs are in 8 bit 4:0:0 which loses a lot of color information. Some have 10 bit 4:2:2 and this is changing as memory speeds increase. -6. many don't have a very good codec and bit speed, but this is also changing. -7. most limit recording to 30 min due to EU taxes. Not usually a problem except for conferences and long interviews. -8. no global shutter. This is usually a very expensive feature, although at least one offshoot has it for under $10k. Maybe $5k. -9. limited fps speed adjustment. Some small cameras can shoot up to 1000fps for a short time, but dslrs can't do even a short slo-mo section. Some will do half-speed. -10. Not as ergonomic as a dedicated movie camera. As a DoP, this can affect things.
All of the above can be found pretty easily if you know what to look for, and that should give you plenty of reasons why it is in many studio's interests to explore what DSLR shooting can bring them. I've shot several shorts, movie videos, and a TV show. Most were with a DSLR.
Periodic copying, on a copier/xerox, of the contents of your wallet works well. Make sure you copy both sides of credit cards and such, as they have numbers to call for cancellation or replacement. You could even simply scan the contents, then encrypt and store it somewhere.
For contacts, calendar, cellphones: Google works well for contacts, but you can use any caldav application. This handles your "physical" rolodex. And if your phone is destroyed, you can restore the contacts to a new phone.
You don't need backups of your physical stuff, you need to be able to quickly replace it.
I plan on being a zombie. I plan on leading the zombies. We are talking zombie apocalypse, right?
Slashdotters tend to have vaguely higher intelligence, judging by their impeccable skill at moderating posts and speed of typing "frist post". Completely ignoring science as any good zombie would, I deduce that their brains must be tastier and more wholesomely satisfying to my soon-to-be-acquired tastes for human brains.
Nobody asked which side I'd be on after the apocalypse. I plan on being on the winning side. Now, go make me a sammich... with your ears as bread.
No, it does not. It might cost $5M to develop, but $100k per unit is over the top if adopted by most major airlines.
I've done black box programming for military aircraft among other things. A flight data recorder might cost that much, possibly more. Remember, they not only have to record data, but have to be able to SURVIVE a crash, including salt water, acid, fire, pressure, and impact. But the added tech to stream it would be nowhere near $100k per device. It could be added on easily to the next generation of flight data recorders. This tech would NOT have to survive a crash, and that makes it a lot easier to build and prove/verify.
There are a *lot* of hurdles to jump through for doing commercial airline embedded systems which adds to the cost tremendously (and fortunately I was working on military craft), but I still think it could easily be added onto the next generation of FDR at far less than $100k per plane.
Right. If you have enough copyright claims against you that are not disputed, youtube will simply remove your account.
This guy pissed off some folks who are making claims in bad faith, but if you're sure you're not violating the law you need to state so in a counter claim. At that point, it's no longer legal to file further DMCA takedown notices on the same material, and they have to take you to court to proceed. Multiple claims on the same clip are considered misrepresentation. This is why it's suspicious to me that he received multiple takedown requests from one source, but maybe it was for different episodes.
Youtube is threatening to remove his account due to multiple unresolved dmca claims. Resolve them, and it goes away. It has little to do with AIDS deniers, except that they're tertiarily involved.
If you expect to get a working chunk of software from an employee for a fixed cost, that employee is essentially a contractor paid per working project. He definitely doesn't need his contract payment to support a needless manager who may very well be the cause of the bugs. Thus, he'll get that portion of what would go to the manager. And he doesn't need to pay for your billing department's building -- after all, that doesn't contribute anything to the success of his contract.
Load the employee at only 1.1x (the extra 10% to be used to pay for his office and some networking), and give him the additional 1.9x or so (effectively doubling or tripling his wages -- many employees are loaded at 2.0-3.0x), get rid of his managers, and give him a design document as accurate as a blueprint for building a wall, and the analogy might fit.
Basically, employee wages are "loaded" to account for this type of infrastructure, including having to do rewrites. Hopefully, hiring and management practices will work to minimize rewrites and bugs, and less time spent taking from the slush funds to do rewrites is more profit the company made.
TFA's analogy is like saying "why do we need network support? If it was installed correctly, it will never break."
First, the candidate is a public figure, so that closes a lot of avenues. Second, the sites were only copied once, and were lookalikes; it's not clear they were actually copied. Not copied means it's not a copyright violation. Third, it's unlikely that it's registered at the copyright office, which limits the liability.
It might be able to be used, but I have doubts it can recover the money fraudulently received. If the candidates had trademarked their names, it might be a possible avenue, but I don't think these people who made the sites would care much.
One of Gygax's hallmarks as DM was the killing of players and deadly traps. I'd never seen him run in person, but heard many stories. At cons, the players loved the creative ways he'd make them reroll.
Personally, I never enjoyed that much, but that said I actually ran a Tomb of Horrors campaign (sprung on unwitting players), but added a catch... they had the Groundhog Day curse, and woke up every morning exactly the same until they reached a certain part of the dungeon and flipped a switch which progressed them to the next day. They died a lot and it was hilarious, but they never had to reroll characters. Of course, one guy got eaten by the demilich, which was stuffed into a bag of holding, and tossed into a sphere of annihilation. It doesn't get much more "dead" than that.
If you don't buy, you're not paying for it. If you never click on ads (like me), you're not only getting served content you don't want, but it's taking you longer to load pages and so forth.
There's no guilt in it if you would otherwise never click and never buy. While I love (e.g. fark), I have never clicked one of their ads ever unless by accident. Being served ads is not somehow paying for anything, unless money actually comes out of your pocket.
You do own your computer, but zero tolerance is stupid. You have a choice to click or not. Content providers have a right to display on your computer when YOU request their site. If it's a malware site, it gets blacklisted by multiple entities and browsers. Since you're on slashdot, zero tolerance by an anonymous coward means you're getting fed ads. If you're not getting ads, you installed some software to prevent that, and that activity means you tolerated it more than zero. If you truly believe in zero tolerance, gtfo slashdot and nearly every other popular website out there including google search, youtube, yahoo, etc.
I will state that if a website uses anti-adblock software that bypasses my blocking in any way, I immediately close the page. I do not need their service enough that I will suffer their bullshit. This, in contrast to "zero tolerance" is my balking rate to annoying manipulation and my curiosity never gets the best of me. If I'm reading an article, and 15 seconds later an opaque ad comes up, I close the page and blacklist the site. Some sites even bypass noscript or make it unreadable without javascript, and noscript comes with its own set of problems making many web pages unusable (even with "temporarily allow all on this page") due to xss protection among other things.
You have that choice of what to browse, and content providers have a choice of how to market. Forcing ads onto people unwilling to view ads is a very low percentage market, therefore there is no reason to pretend there's some sort of arms race. There isn't.
The overall point is that spending money to market to people who not only don't want your ads, but will actively blacklist your entire website if it's too obnoxious (*cough*upworthy*cough*) means marketing money poorly spent. If adblock software is intentionally rendered ineffective, those websites will get far fewer visitors. They will lose money.
Will the programmer be held responsible for murder?
Will the programmer be guilty of creating a WMD if it goes crazy?
What if it gets hacked?
Unlike creating a firearm where the human controls all usage (thus, freeing the manufacturers from liability), this entire scenario is a lot less scary simply by holding the creators and operators guilty of any crimes it commits, including war crimes.
I claim, preemptively, that such claims are bullshit. The censorship is intentional, and will get reversed, but it will be cited as a mistake. Mark my words.
Smaller sites that are just as innocent will get blocked, but won't get unblocked because not enough people will complain. This causes real damage. It costs site owners real money.
That makes some sense, and I concede that if the substation is saturated by solar generation, there are additional costs that (for now), the generating solar stations should subsidize upgrading. It should not be a full 100% subsidy.
Or perhaps pay for storage devices (e.g. huge flywheels) that are used by the substation at night and for smoothing.
I also submit that all new substations in sunny or windy areas should be built with this eventuality in mind. I live in a very sunny area, and new housing is required to have roof wiring for future solar installations done by the homeowner. We're still at a point where there is no way substations are saturated, however the marketing attitude that somehow these generating stations are "freeloaders" needs to be nipped in the bud. That's simply a lie. At a 90% efficiency from the generating station, I can get electrons to a neighbor at 97% efficiency with zero emissions. No, it's the power companies that are freeloading MY clean air (and yours!).
Stop saying "free storage". It's not. There are two things. First, the power co doesn't "store" those electrons, they SELL THEM. It's more like a loan, and you're the bank. They should pay interest. Second, they power co benefits from your electrons. During peak times, which is generally when the sun is shining and people have their AC cranked, the power co would normally have to send tons of power out, losing a TON in the transmission due to capacitance and resistance loss. Until we get superconducting wiring to the transformers, they suffer loss. But when someone sends power to a nearby neighbor, far fewer electrons are lost and the power company charges them the full amount, yet would have to send far more energy from the power plant if not for that neighbor.
Well stated and less scathing than I would've been.
One additional thing you left out is transmission loss, which small generators solve. Getting 1kwh to my house over the grid goes over high tension lines from 80 mi away to a distribution point 1mi away. I don't know the exact loss, but I'd be surprised if it were above 80%. It's pretty high compared to me sending excess energy back into the grid for my neighbors to use 300 feet away.
When these tweens driving this "new revolution/resolution" start losing their eyesight, retina display will be the work of the devil.
Of course, 4k will be outmoded by then, and if it's anything like the past 20 years, laptops will probably be relegated to the likes of 300 baud modems are today.
Cities tend toward voting democrat as people believe the infrastructure works well for quality of life. Gun violence tends towards concentrations of people, otherwise known as cities.
Save your BS propaganda for facebook. It's not welcome here.
Plain and simple, keep your old emails, offline. If you get cornered for a conversation in person or phone, no problem... just dash off an email stating "You know how you were telling me at lunch not to worry about the security vulns? This still really bothers me. There's got to be a way to mitigate it without affecting deadlines. Imagine the missed deadlines if we lose our infrastructure to an easy hack."
Don't sound like a troublemaker, but rather, a concerned worker.
Make it clear you're the professional, and in your professional opinion and that of industry standards, security is sorely lacking. Itemize the issues you have in an email. Keep that email.
Support their decisions, and live with it.
Finally, if the shit hits the fan and anyone points fingers at you, refer them to that email. If they fire you for it, that's when you become a troublemaker.
Slashdot Mirror
You wouldn't, because by asking this question you betray that you undoubtedly have never shot a video before.
DSLRs have some great features, and potential features if you need them.
0. high quality and cheaper cost than a broadcast quality 2k camera.
1. interchangeable lenses.
2. easy to mount nearly anywhere.
3. large sensor can give a shallow DOF when needed, and decent low-light ability.
4. some can shoot raw footage, when needed.
5. can use comparatively inexpensive vintage lenses.
6. easily maintained and replaced.
7. high enough quality for movies, and getting better.
8. well-supported by 3rd parties.
9. often have very usable ISOs, esp with a little bit of noise reduction (of which there's exactly one good program).
10. have spawned camera offshoots based on DSLR video which is closer to a movie camera/dslr cross.
11. can be operated remotely over usb or wifi. This includes focus pulling.
12. firmware can be hacked on some, unlocking even more features.
13. can be used as a crash camera for larger budgets.
14. can be housed for underwater shooting.
Some of the problems with DSLRs for filming. Not all will apply on any particular shoot.
-1. large sensor can be a big hindrance when you need a large DOF, and requires a lot more light than a small sensor.
-2. most movie modes are afterthoughts. Very few decent still cameras also have decent movie modes.
-3. very few have any sort of usable auto-focus, although some can lock on and track. Autofocus pulling usually sucks.
-4. very few have genlock, SDI, or aux i/o or undecorated uncompressed output
-5. most outputs are in 8 bit 4:0:0 which loses a lot of color information. Some have 10 bit 4:2:2 and this is changing as memory speeds increase.
-6. many don't have a very good codec and bit speed, but this is also changing.
-7. most limit recording to 30 min due to EU taxes. Not usually a problem except for conferences and long interviews.
-8. no global shutter. This is usually a very expensive feature, although at least one offshoot has it for under $10k. Maybe $5k.
-9. limited fps speed adjustment. Some small cameras can shoot up to 1000fps for a short time, but dslrs can't do even a short slo-mo section. Some will do half-speed.
-10. Not as ergonomic as a dedicated movie camera. As a DoP, this can affect things.
All of the above can be found pretty easily if you know what to look for, and that should give you plenty of reasons why it is in many studio's interests to explore what DSLR shooting can bring them. I've shot several shorts, movie videos, and a TV show. Most were with a DSLR.
Periodic copying, on a copier/xerox, of the contents of your wallet works well. Make sure you copy both sides of credit cards and such, as they have numbers to call for cancellation or replacement. You could even simply scan the contents, then encrypt and store it somewhere.
For contacts, calendar, cellphones: Google works well for contacts, but you can use any caldav application. This handles your "physical" rolodex. And if your phone is destroyed, you can restore the contacts to a new phone.
You don't need backups of your physical stuff, you need to be able to quickly replace it.
I plan on being a zombie. I plan on leading the zombies. We are talking zombie apocalypse, right?
Slashdotters tend to have vaguely higher intelligence, judging by their impeccable skill at moderating posts and speed of typing "frist post". Completely ignoring science as any good zombie would, I deduce that their brains must be tastier and more wholesomely satisfying to my soon-to-be-acquired tastes for human brains.
Nobody asked which side I'd be on after the apocalypse. I plan on being on the winning side. Now, go make me a sammich... with your ears as bread.
No, it does not. It might cost $5M to develop, but $100k per unit is over the top if adopted by most major airlines.
I've done black box programming for military aircraft among other things. A flight data recorder might cost that much, possibly more. Remember, they not only have to record data, but have to be able to SURVIVE a crash, including salt water, acid, fire, pressure, and impact. But the added tech to stream it would be nowhere near $100k per device. It could be added on easily to the next generation of flight data recorders. This tech would NOT have to survive a crash, and that makes it a lot easier to build and prove/verify.
There are a *lot* of hurdles to jump through for doing commercial airline embedded systems which adds to the cost tremendously (and fortunately I was working on military craft), but I still think it could easily be added onto the next generation of FDR at far less than $100k per plane.
Duh, you encrypt the bullets.
Tethered balloons (blimps), and quite legal to use for commercial use.
Untethered blimps don't have much control for commercial use, and have other legal issues.
Some are, and overuse of free radical scavengers can harm you.
But we're talking about coffee, not generic antioxidants like BHT. Coffee contains some antioxidants, but also B2 and B5, and caffeine.
Right. If you have enough copyright claims against you that are not disputed, youtube will simply remove your account.
This guy pissed off some folks who are making claims in bad faith, but if you're sure you're not violating the law you need to state so in a counter claim. At that point, it's no longer legal to file further DMCA takedown notices on the same material, and they have to take you to court to proceed. Multiple claims on the same clip are considered misrepresentation. This is why it's suspicious to me that he received multiple takedown requests from one source, but maybe it was for different episodes.
Youtube is threatening to remove his account due to multiple unresolved dmca claims. Resolve them, and it goes away. It has little to do with AIDS deniers, except that they're tertiarily involved.
That's what the workweek is for :-)
If you expect to get a working chunk of software from an employee for a fixed cost, that employee is essentially a contractor paid per working project. He definitely doesn't need his contract payment to support a needless manager who may very well be the cause of the bugs. Thus, he'll get that portion of what would go to the manager. And he doesn't need to pay for your billing department's building -- after all, that doesn't contribute anything to the success of his contract.
Load the employee at only 1.1x (the extra 10% to be used to pay for his office and some networking), and give him the additional 1.9x or so (effectively doubling or tripling his wages -- many employees are loaded at 2.0-3.0x), get rid of his managers, and give him a design document as accurate as a blueprint for building a wall, and the analogy might fit.
Basically, employee wages are "loaded" to account for this type of infrastructure, including having to do rewrites. Hopefully, hiring and management practices will work to minimize rewrites and bugs, and less time spent taking from the slush funds to do rewrites is more profit the company made.
TFA's analogy is like saying "why do we need network support? If it was installed correctly, it will never break."
First, the candidate is a public figure, so that closes a lot of avenues.
Second, the sites were only copied once, and were lookalikes; it's not clear they were actually copied. Not copied means it's not a copyright violation.
Third, it's unlikely that it's registered at the copyright office, which limits the liability.
It might be able to be used, but I have doubts it can recover the money fraudulently received. If the candidates had trademarked their names, it might be a possible avenue, but I don't think these people who made the sites would care much.
He said viewers complained he's too robotic, but the again his wife is named ELIZA.
Wasn't it the teeth?
I just remember it would rise up and zorch someone, sated only after eating 10 souls. Hooray for villagers.
One of Gygax's hallmarks as DM was the killing of players and deadly traps. I'd never seen him run in person, but heard many stories. At cons, the players loved the creative ways he'd make them reroll.
Personally, I never enjoyed that much, but that said I actually ran a Tomb of Horrors campaign (sprung on unwitting players), but added a catch... they had the Groundhog Day curse, and woke up every morning exactly the same until they reached a certain part of the dungeon and flipped a switch which progressed them to the next day. They died a lot and it was hilarious, but they never had to reroll characters. Of course, one guy got eaten by the demilich, which was stuffed into a bag of holding, and tossed into a sphere of annihilation. It doesn't get much more "dead" than that.
If you don't buy, you're not paying for it. If you never click on ads (like me), you're not only getting served content you don't want, but it's taking you longer to load pages and so forth.
There's no guilt in it if you would otherwise never click and never buy. While I love (e.g. fark), I have never clicked one of their ads ever unless by accident. Being served ads is not somehow paying for anything, unless money actually comes out of your pocket.
You do own your computer, but zero tolerance is stupid. You have a choice to click or not. Content providers have a right to display on your computer when YOU request their site. If it's a malware site, it gets blacklisted by multiple entities and browsers. Since you're on slashdot, zero tolerance by an anonymous coward means you're getting fed ads. If you're not getting ads, you installed some software to prevent that, and that activity means you tolerated it more than zero. If you truly believe in zero tolerance, gtfo slashdot and nearly every other popular website out there including google search, youtube, yahoo, etc.
I will state that if a website uses anti-adblock software that bypasses my blocking in any way, I immediately close the page. I do not need their service enough that I will suffer their bullshit. This, in contrast to "zero tolerance" is my balking rate to annoying manipulation and my curiosity never gets the best of me. If I'm reading an article, and 15 seconds later an opaque ad comes up, I close the page and blacklist the site. Some sites even bypass noscript or make it unreadable without javascript, and noscript comes with its own set of problems making many web pages unusable (even with "temporarily allow all on this page") due to xss protection among other things.
You have that choice of what to browse, and content providers have a choice of how to market. Forcing ads onto people unwilling to view ads is a very low percentage market, therefore there is no reason to pretend there's some sort of arms race. There isn't.
The overall point is that spending money to market to people who not only don't want your ads, but will actively blacklist your entire website if it's too obnoxious (*cough*upworthy*cough*) means marketing money poorly spent. If adblock software is intentionally rendered ineffective, those websites will get far fewer visitors. They will lose money.
Will the programmer be held responsible for murder?
Will the programmer be guilty of creating a WMD if it goes crazy?
What if it gets hacked?
Unlike creating a firearm where the human controls all usage (thus, freeing the manufacturers from liability), this entire scenario is a lot less scary simply by holding the creators and operators guilty of any crimes it commits, including war crimes.
I claim, preemptively, that such claims are bullshit. The censorship is intentional, and will get reversed, but it will be cited as a mistake. Mark my words.
Smaller sites that are just as innocent will get blocked, but won't get unblocked because not enough people will complain. This causes real damage. It costs site owners real money.
That makes some sense, and I concede that if the substation is saturated by solar generation, there are additional costs that (for now), the generating solar stations should subsidize upgrading. It should not be a full 100% subsidy.
Or perhaps pay for storage devices (e.g. huge flywheels) that are used by the substation at night and for smoothing.
I also submit that all new substations in sunny or windy areas should be built with this eventuality in mind. I live in a very sunny area, and new housing is required to have roof wiring for future solar installations done by the homeowner. We're still at a point where there is no way substations are saturated, however the marketing attitude that somehow these generating stations are "freeloaders" needs to be nipped in the bud. That's simply a lie. At a 90% efficiency from the generating station, I can get electrons to a neighbor at 97% efficiency with zero emissions. No, it's the power companies that are freeloading MY clean air (and yours!).
You could not be more wrong. Peak power use is largely when the sun is shining.
Air conditioning and office lights and the majority of meals is during the time the sun is shining.
Stop saying "free storage". It's not. There are two things. First, the power co doesn't "store" those electrons, they SELL THEM. It's more like a loan, and you're the bank. They should pay interest.
Second, they power co benefits from your electrons. During peak times, which is generally when the sun is shining and people have their AC cranked, the power co would normally have to send tons of power out, losing a TON in the transmission due to capacitance and resistance loss. Until we get superconducting wiring to the transformers, they suffer loss. But when someone sends power to a nearby neighbor, far fewer electrons are lost and the power company charges them the full amount, yet would have to send far more energy from the power plant if not for that neighbor.
Well stated and less scathing than I would've been.
One additional thing you left out is transmission loss, which small generators solve. Getting 1kwh to my house over the grid goes over high tension lines from 80 mi away to a distribution point 1mi away. I don't know the exact loss, but I'd be surprised if it were above 80%. It's pretty high compared to me sending excess energy back into the grid for my neighbors to use 300 feet away.
When these tweens driving this "new revolution/resolution" start losing their eyesight, retina display will be the work of the devil.
Of course, 4k will be outmoded by then, and if it's anything like the past 20 years, laptops will probably be relegated to the likes of 300 baud modems are today.
*sniff* I miss my eyesight :-)
That's not how you compute and remove outliers, although that was an interesting comparison. None of those examples are outliers.
Normally you would use something similar to removing data 3 std deviations from the mean, although that's pretty simplified. There are better ways.
Cities tend toward voting democrat as people believe the infrastructure works well for quality of life. Gun violence tends towards concentrations of people, otherwise known as cities.
Save your BS propaganda for facebook. It's not welcome here.
Plain and simple, keep your old emails, offline. If you get cornered for a conversation in person or phone, no problem... just dash off an email stating "You know how you were telling me at lunch not to worry about the security vulns? This still really bothers me. There's got to be a way to mitigate it without affecting deadlines. Imagine the missed deadlines if we lose our infrastructure to an easy hack."
Don't sound like a troublemaker, but rather, a concerned worker.
Make it clear you're the professional, and in your professional opinion and that of industry standards, security is sorely lacking. Itemize the issues you have in an email. Keep that email.
Support their decisions, and live with it.
Finally, if the shit hits the fan and anyone points fingers at you, refer them to that email. If they fire you for it, that's when you become a troublemaker.