there is several projects aimed at running windows binaries, one of them being an NT clone, dos clones already exist and can be made to run windows dll's on top for an olde worlde windows, and of course wine. i personally hope what it will involve is a bsd core running a customised and advanced wine fork, i mean, considering brazil and several other countries are going linux and open source it would be stupid of them to not collaborate with their fellow rising industrial stars like brazil who iirc are moving their government IT over to open source. a 99.9% binary compatible framework to run windows apps would be beneficial for everyone who is not NATO, indeed i can imagine some of the more client-agnostic big tech contractors who help build military stuff would love to be able to sell their windows-targeted software to someone else... brazil, india and russia at least would all be interested, china is too closed to alliances in any way but who knows, if india gets their project off the ground and achieve their goal.
remember, a lot of those windows programs are now partially developed by indians... if anyone can make a fully binary compatible windows environment, it's india. they've been doing so much of american-based multinational corporations' development already they have a rich developer skills base.
the more money the mafiaa makes me pay for watching their rubbish the less i want to pay. anyone remember an article from yesterday pointing out that the encoding and decoding of a standard definition raw video stream on hdmi requires at least a quad core 2ghz x86 class cpu? ok maybe it's not well optimised code yet but please explain to me the logic of encrypting a point to point connection that is at most 6 metres long? without talking about fables about how all the people who leech a movie from torrents had the money to spend on movies in the first place (i for one can barely afford rent and food and infrequent transport and my internet spend is only about the same as 2 movies a month if i buy popcorn). where do they think i'm gonna extract that extra money from? sell my blood or something? i don't have haemochromatosis, and the blood bank doesn't want my blood anyway because i used needles years ago even though i have been tested clear of blood borne diseases the whole time since.
anyway, wikipedia does better movie entries than the imdb. for that matter filmographies too. and if your interest is music, discogs is the best place to go and wouldn't you know it, it's user content driven... i'm boycotting imdb from now on, not that i'd ever click on their stupid ads. i also don't go to cinemas much anymore... not that there's much worth really watching anyway... but there's an IMAX sized theatre not far from me right in the middle of a major student district that will let you watch most of the mainstream releases on an imax-sized screen for aud$6.50 full adult ticket price... now and then i'd be happy to go there but the rest of the city has your regular 100sq/m theatres with 5 metre wide screens and $12 ticket prices... who are these twits getting their data from?
can anyone else spot the irony about their nonsense about losing money to piracy when they aren't obeying the laws of economics they profess are godsent about price elasticity? goodbye imdb, and good riddance... you don't have a monopoly on publicly available information.
viewmaster? i always wondered why everything on those things seemed like multilayer cels like in animations... so the viewmaster people were too cheap to even use stereoscopic cameras eh? if they did that to any movie it would make it unwatchable. it'd look better if it was rotoscoped with fingerpaint.
yeah, the fact it takes a 2ghz cpu to decrypt standard definition fast enough should be sufficient to argue that it's not only a waste of time (keys are already cracked and now the algorithms are out in the wild) - the whole thing is defunct. it is only a matter of a very short time before they can't stop anyone plugging a computer into a hdmi output from an 'authorised' playback device and the computer pretends to be a monitor that knows the seekrits and voila, 100% pristine, unencrypted video dumped onto a hard drive (or piped into an encoder).
if only this was enough of a point to suggest they are wasting their energy and that any law that permits such stupidity is a bad law. let's not forget the stupid dvd/bluray disc is also encrypted and before it gets re-encrypted again, it has to be decrypted. that's three totally wasteful processing loads that are so big that for the same processing cost you could be decoding the whole stream in high definition if it wasn't encrypted.
i'll stop downloading bluray rips from the interwebs when they stop costing me twice as much electricity as is neccessary to decode their crappy movies. oh, and when they start realising that tiny little 2 metre high cinema screens, cruddy overpriced popcorn and no comfy seats and beers to drink are gonna make me think my 42 inch bravia and 8 channel surround system in my own loungeroom is much more pleasant. i'm sure i'm not alone and if the lawyers ever come to my house making overblown claims about how much i owe them i'll spend that money they are demanding on laywers to put them back in their place. not just violating the laws of cryptography but also the laws of free market economics. which on any other subject they will swear black and blue is 'The Way'.
oh and what are they going to do when high def eyegoggles finally hit the market? they better be hoping someone makes processors that are about 10x as calculation-per-second-per-watt more efficient than any portable media playing device can handle, cos otherwise the technology would be dead in the water.
hehe yep nothing to see here except wild claims from one site on the first page of results with not even an attempt to convince me with marketing woo. just 'we can make your 2d 3d kthxbye' puhlease.
it's possible to generate 3d models from multiple 2d image sources, microsoft was showing one off a year or two ago but that thing required at least two to generate any depth and of course the more different views the more accurate it would have been with regard to surface textures.
i personally want this technology to become more widely developed and available, being able to turn photos into a mesh even if it is relatively primitive would be immensely useful. for one thing it'd mean no more funny looking facial skin textures because the model would be directly derived from the photos rather than wrapped onto a model which may or may not match the image in the first place. plus i still haven't got around to learning how to use a 3d modelling program and being able take a real object and turn it into 3d would be very useful.
my biggest interest is in digitising body parts, specifically hands and feet, because they are extremely difficult to create perfectly fitting tailoured hm... 'garments' to put over them. if i could digitise my feet i could use that to warp a design or generate a new design and - for example - use it to generate a 3d printed prototype for moulding a urethane mould to make soles, for example, or to make gloves that have knuckle protection and knife-edge protection that actually protects those parts properly. on-demand fabrication of custom made items would be made so much simpler if the person simply needed to stand in front of a pair of mirrors oriented at 45 degrees either side, it would be enough, along with some kind of measuring scale, to be able to warp a clothing pattern automatically for a tailored fit without all the fiddling and prototyping required normally.
how the hell do you turn a fully 2d primary source into 3d? and 3d that doesn't make you want to scream 'FAKE!'...
if anyone can post a link in reply to my post showing that from a single 2d image source a 3d image can be created that doesn't look a bit wonky i'll stfu. sure, piece of cake converting all that 3d graphics to stereoscopic, but, and maybe i am not understanding the filming process with that expensive 70mm cinema type film, but there is definitely only one 'good' copy of all the shots in 2d, there isn't inadvertently gonna suddenly be a second one... i mean, i would guess you could work on something if there was a second cam recording at the same time at a slightly different but convergent view, but really, you'd have to have one on each side, that could give you a volume model that could let you do the 3d but even still... i call bullshit on converting star wars to 3d. i don't see how it could be done. i'd love to know how such a thing could be done. 3d won't work if you can't flesh out the occluded parts that you see to the left and right of the 2d original.
yeah, what i want to see is a lawyer who has a bit of a bee in their bonnet about police brutality and abuse of privilege doing him a lawsuit pro bono for having a gun waved at him without legal justification.
yeah, i'd say that'd be the next issue to come up for this guy, i bet the compensation for being threatened like that will cover the traffic fine HAHAHA stupid pig.
if cameras and microphones were allowed in courtrooms defendants would thusly be denied the right of due process due to making it into a media spectacle. whoever modded up the parent is a retard.
i'm modding this story down because it's rubbish. the whole crux of tfa is saying it's ridiculous to suggest that the genetic code for the brain is the... code... for the brain, that's what kurzweil is saying. i personally don't think he's far off maybe a little optimistic at 10 years but 20 years for full neural simulation of a human brain isn't so unlikely. we have simulations to a pretty decent level now, at least cockroach level intelligence. considering in 30 years we have gone from 8 bit 8086's and 6504's at sub-megahertz and such to 8 core 64 bit cpus running at 3+ ghz...
in a communication system, only passwords can be used. it's like keys and locks. you need one and the other. the problem is that you shouldn't need more than one password when they already authenticate you to an email address.
the big concern i have is all these sites who require passwords and logins - how do i know their methods of storing this data is secure? do they hash the input and do hash comparisons? or do they save them in cleartext on their database? and think about all the places you encounter online, doing business with every single one of them requires a password. shouldn't you be able to have email as the primary linkage and eliminate the extra passwords?
this is what openid is all about. i'm quite confident google knows how to keep my password secret, but i dunno about all the ecom sites i use. or the irc chatroom i use. and all the rest. it makes me nervous and by and large i've not been stung by id theft but i worry about it all the time. if regular people knew what i know i think openid would be standardised as a login tomorrow and all 'private data' would require unlocking with a PKI key provided from the openid provider at the unlocking from an authorised user. i don't think id security has had nearly the amount of thought it deserves.
Through a combination of advances in dispersion management, wavelength-division multiplexing, and optical amplifiers, modern-day optical fibers can carry information at around 14 Terabits per second over 160 kilometers of fiber [4]. Engineers are always looking at current limitations in order to improve fiber-optic communication, and several of these restrictions are currently being researched
14 terabits over 160km? does tony abbot's advisors do any research? presently, we have a copper network that can manage at best 24mbit at a max distance of 4km, at best. the NBN is an *optical* network, and is likely to be dispersed at network segments of less than 100km per run. lol. do i really need to point out the stupidity of saying it can't be gigabit? do i also need to point out the stupidity of saying a 100mbit network is not gonna be a piece of cake to roll out with optical in australian metro areas? what a retard.
anyway, i'm voting for the sex party. you can bet they are all on for the NBN. super HD pr0n here we come:)
apple taking other people's ideas and rolling them into new operating system extensions is nothing new. i remember many many classic macos extensions that started out as shareware and when they got really popular ended up in the next revision of the OS. well, some of those extensions were even free. the fact that apple is turning these copied ideas into *patents* however, is disturbing, yet more evidence about how software patents are evil.
of course all you nerds wouldn't have heard of this http://www.getgorilla.com/ it's just (usually) coloured pyrex glass for body piercing jewellery, mostly earlobes.
yeah, i was thinking exactly the same thing. not only does this defeat regular night vision but it would also defeat thermal imaging. and radar invisibility tho not nearly as impressive to normal nonscientific minded folks, is old hat. yes, that means microwave band. sounds to me like sonar vision is gonna have to be looked at, as is far UV. i'm sure the 'invisibility' is not perfect though, most likely along the lines of what was depicted in 'predator' where a small amount of visual distortion is visible and can be seen clearly with high motion.
isn't it wonderful for every offensive technology a defensive technology eventually arises and flattens the playing field.
i think it does count. the extra heat from global warming is sequestered as latent heat by extra water going into the atmosphere which means less evaporation and if the amount of carbon dioxide being produced to power an average person's life needs is in the tonnes then we are talking about tonnes of water being released into the atmosphere too.
i am not questioning the importance of carbon dioxide's effects, simply that the topic in question, the shrinking of the thermosphere, could be explained by the rise in available water that is soaking up the excess heat, and that the thing that this shrinkage implies to me - rising atmospheric density, is an effect that only water can possibly explain, and has effects on the radiation reaching the surface that i've not seen discussed. increased refractive index of the atmosphere, for one. this could probably be measured too, with adequately sensitive devices.
i know that carbon dioxide is also a dense gas, but heat combined with increased available water in gas form is a factor in the equation. also, and you are not considering this, but precipitation does not always occur when temperature drops below the dew point, this is what cloud seeding is all about - just like crystals falling out of supersaturated solution, without seeding nuclei that water stays in gas form.
i have been saying this for quite some time but hasn't anyone paid attention to the fact that hydrocarbons produce more water than carbon dioxide? methane is the most extreme example with a 2:1 ratio no hydrocarbon burns with less than a 1:1 ratio (fully hydrocarbons made of all double bonded carbons would be 1:1, obviously triple bonded, like acetylene, is the only exception).
it seems logical to me that increased atmospheric water is going to mean a rise in atmospheric density (possibly also increasing total internal reflection and reflection) and obviously also a lowering of overall temperature in the atmosphere (more water in the atmosphere means a higher latent heat capacity). increased density means more effect of gravity, as well as the overall drop in ambient temperature from increased heat latency.
i'm not sure what other effects there would be from increased atmospheric water, as well as increased CO2 and reduced O2. i was thinking it may influence cloud formation patterns, alter the amount of overall radiation striking the poles and equator (via total internal reflection caused by increased atmospheric refractive index).
in any case, i'm not that familiar with climate modelling and i'm not sure how much they count the increase in H2O in the atmosphere in their predictions, but it seems to me if we are gonna go out hunting for human influences on climate changes, then the influence of water should be, in my view, rated more highly than any other factor because of the refractive index and latent heat capacity of water, two factors that are naturally going to give it the strongest influence of any chemical in the air.
when are they going to finish making snow? i've used early versions of it and it eats h264 for breakfast, and theora? yeah it's an open codec, which is great but it's based on vp3 and that's more ye olde than mp4. everyone's hardware can handle h264, it's about the same to do snow decoding, but the quality and compression is measurably better.
the commercials aren't louder, they are compressed. it's a commonly used audio processing method used a lot these days on commercial music and it's causing a lot of consternation amongst audiophiles and other people who point out that flat dynamics in music causes hearing fatigue (i don't listen to commercial music anyway but i do notice it when i am unfortunately subjected to it). well, if you have a typical movie or tv show that has it's average decibel power at 83 dB then you put on an ad that has it's dynamics flattened and maxed out at even 83dB it still sounds louder because there is no quiet bits to the track apart from silences.
good stats there to use as ammunition against this nonsense. as far as i'm concerned, the record companies can't justify this unless they offer EVERYTHING on their catalogue (even out of print) as digital downloads... if they think DRM is so great, the ipod and itunes is set up to do this for them. cos otherwise they are interfering with the market in PMPs, and implying that the vendors of these devices are selling devices to facilitate some kind of 'crime'.
record/movie/telecommunications companies are all still breathtakingly overcharging for their products... and with the government in their pockets the voices of the consumers is not being heard. i pay well over 50x as much for internet bandwidth on my mobile phone compared to my ADSL, the cd's here cost aud$25-30 dollars (out of that a dollar goes to the artist, and the materials to produce it maybe another dollar) and DVDs cost 30-40 dollars and the proportions of costs are about the same as for music. there's a word for marking up prices this much, but i can't remember right now what it is. it should be a crime to make unreasonable profit, imho.
i think if they are gonna try and justify this by talking about the money the artists are losing they should be made to reveal how much they are paying them and either raise the royalty rates or stfu and stop being such dinosaurs.
i don't think the mechanisms of drug addiction are capable of a 100% effective rate of addiction. just one little gene regulating the response of one section of the mechanism being divergent from the average could make it fail.
for example, i've tried a few times but opiate drugs just don't make me feel good. a comfortable signal attenuation at best. not everyone has a link between their opiod receptors and serotonin/dopamine receptors that reacts as strongly, producing the critical warm euphoria you hear opiate addicts raving about.
the idea of serious money going into it is good but i really don't think it will be like that. advertising for potentially addictive psychoactive drugs is on its way out, tobacco fell first and alcohol is under serious attack now, next will be caffeine. what needs to happen is that a much broader variety of various chemicals is studied for key danger indicators, and the degree of control over supply should be in line with the risk of mortality from a single dose. drugs which lack effects on critical life support systems should be regarded as generally safe. alcohol, opiates, benzodiazepines, these are all dangerous drugs because they suppress breathing. alcohol is the least dangerous in part because it has to be taken orally, meaning that passing out is likely before dropping. and same with cocaine, which is a cardioaccelerator, meaning it can intensify the signals to the heart in both rate and power, causing some kind of hypertensive crisis.
so what are you saying? prohibiting psychoactive substances doesn't work?
prohibition drives drug production and distribution into the general criminal millieu (just like in al capone's days) and anything we see as a negative side of drug abuse is amplified by such things as fluctuating purity, contamination, the crime committed by addicts to pay the inflated prices justified by prohibition, not to mention the fact that any genuine research about drugs is gonna be difficult to do when the people funding it are probably looking to see 'drugs are bad' in the conclusions of the studies.
also this point needs to be talked about:
Here is an example of a legal drug causing lots of problems. Do we really need to multiply that? Alcohol and pot are baby aspirin compared to coke, meth, heroin.
what basis is there for the idea that legalisation is going to increase drug use rates? surely the people who want to use drugs are already using them, and the only thing that will change is the ones who were using legal ones may decide to spend their money on ones that used to be illegal.
your statement is based on the unfounded faith in the idea that prohibition is actually reducing drug use. if you look at the epidemiology of drug use, interestingly enough you find in places where the law is soft on prohibiting the less harmful drugs (eg, cannabis and the netherlands) that they actually have lower drug use rates and lower crime rates.
prohibition is like the mother of drug advertisments. by banning a drug you make it into a forbidden fruit and just like the old myth of adam and eve and the serpent and the fruit of knowledge, and half the population is going to use it JUST because it's forbidden. prohibition gives a very dangerous avenue for the outlet of the urge to defy society that the majority of the population experiences in a big way during their teenage years.
even with drugs that are ostensibly legal, like tobacco, for example, the overall poor opinion of it creates a hook for the young ones and this is why we are seeing that rates of taking up smoking in young people hasn't significantly changed even though advertising has been banned, i believe actually in some places it's increased.
Soo... you're saying that a lack of legally available meth is the problem? What alternative is there? How about not taking it? Works for most people.
i'm not saying that at all. i think that the whole drug regulation system needs to be reformed, and all drug use needs to be monitored by doctors. this way the people with the inability to moderate their use to keep it in balance with their social responsibilities can be given the treatment required to bring about this more healthy way of approaching a given substance. what we are seeing in california and other places with medical marijuana is where all psychoactive drugs need to go. prescription only. sure there will be some who will bypass the regulatory systems but i doubt it would be any worse than your average country with alcohol and tobacco that isn't taxed so high it's almost banned. and sure, doctors will write scripts for people who shouldn't be taking a drug or taking as much of a drug, but this is something you can legislate and mitigate, and sure, there will be some people selling drugs without prescriptions, but several things will be at last set right:
purity and contamination will be all but gone
prices will drop and this in itself will reduce drug-related crime by reducing the amount of money required for the drugs
overall rates of use will drop as the forbidden fruit thing is mostly eliminated, and the monitoring and control of rates of production goes into the hands of our elected officials who can then have some real control over how much drugs people have access to.
You want an example? Look at alcohol. Look at the deaths resulting from the widespread legal use of said drug, and tell me with a straight face that the answer is to unleash big pharma to make and market more chemical toys to play with.
yes, of course, the answer to a small part of the population mishandling something is prohibition. what about education? and your answer specifically implies that alcohol should be banned. yeah right, good luck with that. people only accepted prohibition of psychoactive drugs because they had available drug options, as well as of course the highly effective brainwashing techniques used to demonise the terrible drugs of the time - back in those days cannabis was the drug the filthy peasants used and that's why they attacked it.
fact is that people are using the drugs (amazing but true) anyway. and not enlarging the options for people is not helping, because it's a case of the devil you know. like meth, sure, it's got a lotta downsides, i know from personal experience. but what alternative is there?
at some point society as a whole is gonna have to really re-evaluate this whole business because the mess the current situation has created is a RESULT of prohibition. not the existence of any given drug.
lets say that somehow magically prohibition worked and all the illegal drugs suddenly evaporated. nobody was using illegal drugs. don't you think they'd turn to legal ones? do you even comprehend how big the legal drug abuse problem is now? oxycontin, vicodin, suboxone, valium whatever you care to name. legal drugs are more used in the wrong way than illegal ones. people use drugs for a reason and focusing on their behaviour when they misuse them is missing the point entirely.
he hardly mentions healthcare in the way the summary implies. He states that the pharma industry needs to get it's ass in gear, and that's about it.
legalisation would sure put more money in pharma's pockets hahaha.
it's not really a surprise that a redundant and useless industry like pharmaceuticals is having a hard time these days. same with cars. these are things that are pretty vacant. nobody needs a new car every two years, a properly built car should last 30 years at least with an engine change and regular maintenance. and most drugs are sold to cover up symptoms of other problems like misconceptions about how much of each nutrient we actually need and the subtle long term effects of things that are classified 'safe'.
when times are tough, frivolous things tend to lose the consumer dollar. maybe if big pharma started funding real health research and exploring recreational psychoactive drugs they'd see their bottom line pick up. proper results in the former and safe drugs in the latter increase lifespans and happiness which results in a better economy. this idiotic idea that people can't be trusted to administer psychoactive drugs responsibily basically means these very clever pharmacology people have a very narrow field. psychoactives is a wide open field and nobody's legally allowed to capitalise on it. big pharma is best equipped to. shame it's not likely to happen.
the legacy of highly effective brainwashing campains against psychoactive drugs is a society that is afraid of the idea of investigating the field at all, let alone making it into a proper industry. if the entrenched psychoactive drug industries didn't have the advantage of irrational ridiculous laws and ideas about psychoactive drug use i'm sure they'd be in the shitter these days too. i can tell you one thing for sure, caffeine would NOT be the most widely consumed drug if people had the option of a vibrant research industry exploring other potential stimulants. and i'd say the liquor industry would probably be begging for bailouts too if they had to compete with a legal cannabis industry.
and before i neglect this point... guess which industry is the most thoroughly full of redundant non-useful activity? finance? not to say banks don't perform critical useful functions in society, but the more abstract derivatives get the less relevant they get to reality.
My understanding is that this system is based on work by Nikola Tesla who discovered that it was possible to magnetically transmit power using resonance. By this meaning alternating pulses through a tuned coil on both sides at a tuned frequency. The vibrational energy of a guitar string transmits quite efficiently to adjacent strings on a guitar, it stands to reason that, if like in the example of a low resistance wired coil vibrating at a frequency tuned to the length and width of the coil, the loss of energy in transmission would be much lower if the receiver coil was tuned to resonate at the same frequency or a close harmonic (1 or 2 octaves). The only thing that I am unsure of is this theoretical negation of resistance, which I understand is what the whole idea is based on.
As far as safety goes, it would be quite safe. It is magnetism below a certain frequency and the only thing that might get damaged is inadvertently tuned circuits in electronics and possibly it may damage magnetic media that find themselves in the flux lines directly between receiver and transmitter. I believe the way to limit the distance that can be used is purely about current. Conversely the circuit is limited in capacity by this, putting too many loaded receiver circuits in its range will result in an overall diminution of power transfer to all of the devices.
Slashdot Mirror
there is several projects aimed at running windows binaries, one of them being an NT clone, dos clones already exist and can be made to run windows dll's on top for an olde worlde windows, and of course wine. i personally hope what it will involve is a bsd core running a customised and advanced wine fork, i mean, considering brazil and several other countries are going linux and open source it would be stupid of them to not collaborate with their fellow rising industrial stars like brazil who iirc are moving their government IT over to open source. a 99.9% binary compatible framework to run windows apps would be beneficial for everyone who is not NATO, indeed i can imagine some of the more client-agnostic big tech contractors who help build military stuff would love to be able to sell their windows-targeted software to someone else... brazil, india and russia at least would all be interested, china is too closed to alliances in any way but who knows, if india gets their project off the ground and achieve their goal.
remember, a lot of those windows programs are now partially developed by indians... if anyone can make a fully binary compatible windows environment, it's india. they've been doing so much of american-based multinational corporations' development already they have a rich developer skills base.
the more money the mafiaa makes me pay for watching their rubbish the less i want to pay. anyone remember an article from yesterday pointing out that the encoding and decoding of a standard definition raw video stream on hdmi requires at least a quad core 2ghz x86 class cpu? ok maybe it's not well optimised code yet but please explain to me the logic of encrypting a point to point connection that is at most 6 metres long? without talking about fables about how all the people who leech a movie from torrents had the money to spend on movies in the first place (i for one can barely afford rent and food and infrequent transport and my internet spend is only about the same as 2 movies a month if i buy popcorn). where do they think i'm gonna extract that extra money from? sell my blood or something? i don't have haemochromatosis, and the blood bank doesn't want my blood anyway because i used needles years ago even though i have been tested clear of blood borne diseases the whole time since.
anyway, wikipedia does better movie entries than the imdb. for that matter filmographies too. and if your interest is music, discogs is the best place to go and wouldn't you know it, it's user content driven... i'm boycotting imdb from now on, not that i'd ever click on their stupid ads. i also don't go to cinemas much anymore... not that there's much worth really watching anyway... but there's an IMAX sized theatre not far from me right in the middle of a major student district that will let you watch most of the mainstream releases on an imax-sized screen for aud$6.50 full adult ticket price... now and then i'd be happy to go there but the rest of the city has your regular 100sq/m theatres with 5 metre wide screens and $12 ticket prices... who are these twits getting their data from?
can anyone else spot the irony about their nonsense about losing money to piracy when they aren't obeying the laws of economics they profess are godsent about price elasticity? goodbye imdb, and good riddance... you don't have a monopoly on publicly available information.
viewmaster? i always wondered why everything on those things seemed like multilayer cels like in animations... so the viewmaster people were too cheap to even use stereoscopic cameras eh? if they did that to any movie it would make it unwatchable. it'd look better if it was rotoscoped with fingerpaint.
yeah, the fact it takes a 2ghz cpu to decrypt standard definition fast enough should be sufficient to argue that it's not only a waste of time (keys are already cracked and now the algorithms are out in the wild) - the whole thing is defunct. it is only a matter of a very short time before they can't stop anyone plugging a computer into a hdmi output from an 'authorised' playback device and the computer pretends to be a monitor that knows the seekrits and voila, 100% pristine, unencrypted video dumped onto a hard drive (or piped into an encoder).
if only this was enough of a point to suggest they are wasting their energy and that any law that permits such stupidity is a bad law. let's not forget the stupid dvd/bluray disc is also encrypted and before it gets re-encrypted again, it has to be decrypted. that's three totally wasteful processing loads that are so big that for the same processing cost you could be decoding the whole stream in high definition if it wasn't encrypted.
i'll stop downloading bluray rips from the interwebs when they stop costing me twice as much electricity as is neccessary to decode their crappy movies. oh, and when they start realising that tiny little 2 metre high cinema screens, cruddy overpriced popcorn and no comfy seats and beers to drink are gonna make me think my 42 inch bravia and 8 channel surround system in my own loungeroom is much more pleasant. i'm sure i'm not alone and if the lawyers ever come to my house making overblown claims about how much i owe them i'll spend that money they are demanding on laywers to put them back in their place. not just violating the laws of cryptography but also the laws of free market economics. which on any other subject they will swear black and blue is 'The Way'.
oh and what are they going to do when high def eyegoggles finally hit the market? they better be hoping someone makes processors that are about 10x as calculation-per-second-per-watt more efficient than any portable media playing device can handle, cos otherwise the technology would be dead in the water.
hehe yep nothing to see here except wild claims from one site on the first page of results with not even an attempt to convince me with marketing woo. just 'we can make your 2d 3d kthxbye' puhlease.
it's possible to generate 3d models from multiple 2d image sources, microsoft was showing one off a year or two ago but that thing required at least two to generate any depth and of course the more different views the more accurate it would have been with regard to surface textures.
i personally want this technology to become more widely developed and available, being able to turn photos into a mesh even if it is relatively primitive would be immensely useful. for one thing it'd mean no more funny looking facial skin textures because the model would be directly derived from the photos rather than wrapped onto a model which may or may not match the image in the first place. plus i still haven't got around to learning how to use a 3d modelling program and being able take a real object and turn it into 3d would be very useful.
my biggest interest is in digitising body parts, specifically hands and feet, because they are extremely difficult to create perfectly fitting tailoured hm... 'garments' to put over them. if i could digitise my feet i could use that to warp a design or generate a new design and - for example - use it to generate a 3d printed prototype for moulding a urethane mould to make soles, for example, or to make gloves that have knuckle protection and knife-edge protection that actually protects those parts properly. on-demand fabrication of custom made items would be made so much simpler if the person simply needed to stand in front of a pair of mirrors oriented at 45 degrees either side, it would be enough, along with some kind of measuring scale, to be able to warp a clothing pattern automatically for a tailored fit without all the fiddling and prototyping required normally.
how the hell do you turn a fully 2d primary source into 3d? and 3d that doesn't make you want to scream 'FAKE!'...
if anyone can post a link in reply to my post showing that from a single 2d image source a 3d image can be created that doesn't look a bit wonky i'll stfu. sure, piece of cake converting all that 3d graphics to stereoscopic, but, and maybe i am not understanding the filming process with that expensive 70mm cinema type film, but there is definitely only one 'good' copy of all the shots in 2d, there isn't inadvertently gonna suddenly be a second one... i mean, i would guess you could work on something if there was a second cam recording at the same time at a slightly different but convergent view, but really, you'd have to have one on each side, that could give you a volume model that could let you do the 3d but even still... i call bullshit on converting star wars to 3d. i don't see how it could be done. i'd love to know how such a thing could be done. 3d won't work if you can't flesh out the occluded parts that you see to the left and right of the 2d original.
yeah, what i want to see is a lawyer who has a bit of a bee in their bonnet about police brutality and abuse of privilege doing him a lawsuit pro bono for having a gun waved at him without legal justification.
yeah, i'd say that'd be the next issue to come up for this guy, i bet the compensation for being threatened like that will cover the traffic fine HAHAHA stupid pig.
if cameras and microphones were allowed in courtrooms defendants would thusly be denied the right of due process due to making it into a media spectacle. whoever modded up the parent is a retard.
i'm modding this story down because it's rubbish. the whole crux of tfa is saying it's ridiculous to suggest that the genetic code for the brain is the... code... for the brain, that's what kurzweil is saying. i personally don't think he's far off maybe a little optimistic at 10 years but 20 years for full neural simulation of a human brain isn't so unlikely. we have simulations to a pretty decent level now, at least cockroach level intelligence. considering in 30 years we have gone from 8 bit 8086's and 6504's at sub-megahertz and such to 8 core 64 bit cpus running at 3+ ghz...
in a communication system, only passwords can be used. it's like keys and locks. you need one and the other. the problem is that you shouldn't need more than one password when they already authenticate you to an email address.
the big concern i have is all these sites who require passwords and logins - how do i know their methods of storing this data is secure? do they hash the input and do hash comparisons? or do they save them in cleartext on their database? and think about all the places you encounter online, doing business with every single one of them requires a password. shouldn't you be able to have email as the primary linkage and eliminate the extra passwords?
this is what openid is all about. i'm quite confident google knows how to keep my password secret, but i dunno about all the ecom sites i use. or the irc chatroom i use. and all the rest. it makes me nervous and by and large i've not been stung by id theft but i worry about it all the time. if regular people knew what i know i think openid would be standardised as a login tomorrow and all 'private data' would require unlocking with a PKI key provided from the openid provider at the unlocking from an authorised user. i don't think id security has had nearly the amount of thought it deserves.
i don't know how it wasn't obvious it could go to gigabit with very little tinkering. it's OPTICAL right?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication#Bandwidth-distance_product
Through a combination of advances in dispersion management, wavelength-division multiplexing, and optical amplifiers, modern-day optical fibers can carry information at around 14 Terabits per second over 160 kilometers of fiber [4]. Engineers are always looking at current limitations in order to improve fiber-optic communication, and several of these restrictions are currently being researched
14 terabits over 160km? does tony abbot's advisors do any research? presently, we have a copper network that can manage at best 24mbit at a max distance of 4km, at best. the NBN is an *optical* network, and is likely to be dispersed at network segments of less than 100km per run. lol. do i really need to point out the stupidity of saying it can't be gigabit? do i also need to point out the stupidity of saying a 100mbit network is not gonna be a piece of cake to roll out with optical in australian metro areas? what a retard.
anyway, i'm voting for the sex party. you can bet they are all on for the NBN. super HD pr0n here we come :)
apple taking other people's ideas and rolling them into new operating system extensions is nothing new. i remember many many classic macos extensions that started out as shareware and when they got really popular ended up in the next revision of the OS. well, some of those extensions were even free. the fact that apple is turning these copied ideas into *patents* however, is disturbing, yet more evidence about how software patents are evil.
of course all you nerds wouldn't have heard of this http://www.getgorilla.com/ it's just (usually) coloured pyrex glass for body piercing jewellery, mostly earlobes.
yeah, i was thinking exactly the same thing. not only does this defeat regular night vision but it would also defeat thermal imaging. and radar invisibility tho not nearly as impressive to normal nonscientific minded folks, is old hat. yes, that means microwave band. sounds to me like sonar vision is gonna have to be looked at, as is far UV. i'm sure the 'invisibility' is not perfect though, most likely along the lines of what was depicted in 'predator' where a small amount of visual distortion is visible and can be seen clearly with high motion.
isn't it wonderful for every offensive technology a defensive technology eventually arises and flattens the playing field.
i think it does count. the extra heat from global warming is sequestered as latent heat by extra water going into the atmosphere which means less evaporation and if the amount of carbon dioxide being produced to power an average person's life needs is in the tonnes then we are talking about tonnes of water being released into the atmosphere too.
i am not questioning the importance of carbon dioxide's effects, simply that the topic in question, the shrinking of the thermosphere, could be explained by the rise in available water that is soaking up the excess heat, and that the thing that this shrinkage implies to me - rising atmospheric density, is an effect that only water can possibly explain, and has effects on the radiation reaching the surface that i've not seen discussed. increased refractive index of the atmosphere, for one. this could probably be measured too, with adequately sensitive devices.
i know that carbon dioxide is also a dense gas, but heat combined with increased available water in gas form is a factor in the equation. also, and you are not considering this, but precipitation does not always occur when temperature drops below the dew point, this is what cloud seeding is all about - just like crystals falling out of supersaturated solution, without seeding nuclei that water stays in gas form.
i have been saying this for quite some time but hasn't anyone paid attention to the fact that hydrocarbons produce more water than carbon dioxide? methane is the most extreme example with a 2:1 ratio no hydrocarbon burns with less than a 1:1 ratio (fully hydrocarbons made of all double bonded carbons would be 1:1, obviously triple bonded, like acetylene, is the only exception).
it seems logical to me that increased atmospheric water is going to mean a rise in atmospheric density (possibly also increasing total internal reflection and reflection) and obviously also a lowering of overall temperature in the atmosphere (more water in the atmosphere means a higher latent heat capacity). increased density means more effect of gravity, as well as the overall drop in ambient temperature from increased heat latency.
i'm not sure what other effects there would be from increased atmospheric water, as well as increased CO2 and reduced O2. i was thinking it may influence cloud formation patterns, alter the amount of overall radiation striking the poles and equator (via total internal reflection caused by increased atmospheric refractive index).
in any case, i'm not that familiar with climate modelling and i'm not sure how much they count the increase in H2O in the atmosphere in their predictions, but it seems to me if we are gonna go out hunting for human influences on climate changes, then the influence of water should be, in my view, rated more highly than any other factor because of the refractive index and latent heat capacity of water, two factors that are naturally going to give it the strongest influence of any chemical in the air.
when are they going to finish making snow? i've used early versions of it and it eats h264 for breakfast, and theora? yeah it's an open codec, which is great but it's based on vp3 and that's more ye olde than mp4. everyone's hardware can handle h264, it's about the same to do snow decoding, but the quality and compression is measurably better.
the commercials aren't louder, they are compressed. it's a commonly used audio processing method used a lot these days on commercial music and it's causing a lot of consternation amongst audiophiles and other people who point out that flat dynamics in music causes hearing fatigue (i don't listen to commercial music anyway but i do notice it when i am unfortunately subjected to it). well, if you have a typical movie or tv show that has it's average decibel power at 83 dB then you put on an ad that has it's dynamics flattened and maxed out at even 83dB it still sounds louder because there is no quiet bits to the track apart from silences.
good stats there to use as ammunition against this nonsense. as far as i'm concerned, the record companies can't justify this unless they offer EVERYTHING on their catalogue (even out of print) as digital downloads... if they think DRM is so great, the ipod and itunes is set up to do this for them. cos otherwise they are interfering with the market in PMPs, and implying that the vendors of these devices are selling devices to facilitate some kind of 'crime'.
record/movie/telecommunications companies are all still breathtakingly overcharging for their products... and with the government in their pockets the voices of the consumers is not being heard. i pay well over 50x as much for internet bandwidth on my mobile phone compared to my ADSL, the cd's here cost aud$25-30 dollars (out of that a dollar goes to the artist, and the materials to produce it maybe another dollar) and DVDs cost 30-40 dollars and the proportions of costs are about the same as for music. there's a word for marking up prices this much, but i can't remember right now what it is. it should be a crime to make unreasonable profit, imho.
i think if they are gonna try and justify this by talking about the money the artists are losing they should be made to reveal how much they are paying them and either raise the royalty rates or stfu and stop being such dinosaurs.
i don't think the mechanisms of drug addiction are capable of a 100% effective rate of addiction. just one little gene regulating the response of one section of the mechanism being divergent from the average could make it fail.
for example, i've tried a few times but opiate drugs just don't make me feel good. a comfortable signal attenuation at best. not everyone has a link between their opiod receptors and serotonin/dopamine receptors that reacts as strongly, producing the critical warm euphoria you hear opiate addicts raving about.
the idea of serious money going into it is good but i really don't think it will be like that. advertising for potentially addictive psychoactive drugs is on its way out, tobacco fell first and alcohol is under serious attack now, next will be caffeine. what needs to happen is that a much broader variety of various chemicals is studied for key danger indicators, and the degree of control over supply should be in line with the risk of mortality from a single dose. drugs which lack effects on critical life support systems should be regarded as generally safe. alcohol, opiates, benzodiazepines, these are all dangerous drugs because they suppress breathing. alcohol is the least dangerous in part because it has to be taken orally, meaning that passing out is likely before dropping. and same with cocaine, which is a cardioaccelerator, meaning it can intensify the signals to the heart in both rate and power, causing some kind of hypertensive crisis.
Plus, prohibition has been tried and didn't work.
so what are you saying? prohibiting psychoactive substances doesn't work?
prohibition drives drug production and distribution into the general criminal millieu (just like in al capone's days) and anything we see as a negative side of drug abuse is amplified by such things as fluctuating purity, contamination, the crime committed by addicts to pay the inflated prices justified by prohibition, not to mention the fact that any genuine research about drugs is gonna be difficult to do when the people funding it are probably looking to see 'drugs are bad' in the conclusions of the studies.
also this point needs to be talked about:
Here is an example of a legal drug causing lots of problems. Do we really need to multiply that? Alcohol and pot are baby aspirin compared to coke, meth, heroin.
what basis is there for the idea that legalisation is going to increase drug use rates? surely the people who want to use drugs are already using them, and the only thing that will change is the ones who were using legal ones may decide to spend their money on ones that used to be illegal.
your statement is based on the unfounded faith in the idea that prohibition is actually reducing drug use. if you look at the epidemiology of drug use, interestingly enough you find in places where the law is soft on prohibiting the less harmful drugs (eg, cannabis and the netherlands) that they actually have lower drug use rates and lower crime rates.
prohibition is like the mother of drug advertisments. by banning a drug you make it into a forbidden fruit and just like the old myth of adam and eve and the serpent and the fruit of knowledge, and half the population is going to use it JUST because it's forbidden. prohibition gives a very dangerous avenue for the outlet of the urge to defy society that the majority of the population experiences in a big way during their teenage years.
even with drugs that are ostensibly legal, like tobacco, for example, the overall poor opinion of it creates a hook for the young ones and this is why we are seeing that rates of taking up smoking in young people hasn't significantly changed even though advertising has been banned, i believe actually in some places it's increased.
Soo ... you're saying that a lack of legally available meth is the problem? What alternative is there? How about not taking it? Works for most people.
i'm not saying that at all. i think that the whole drug regulation system needs to be reformed, and all drug use needs to be monitored by doctors. this way the people with the inability to moderate their use to keep it in balance with their social responsibilities can be given the treatment required to bring about this more healthy way of approaching a given substance. what we are seeing in california and other places with medical marijuana is where all psychoactive drugs need to go. prescription only. sure there will be some who will bypass the regulatory systems but i doubt it would be any worse than your average country with alcohol and tobacco that isn't taxed so high it's almost banned. and sure, doctors will write scripts for people who shouldn't be taking a drug or taking as much of a drug, but this is something you can legislate and mitigate, and sure, there will be some people selling drugs without prescriptions, but several things will be at last set right:
purity and contamination will be all but gone
prices will drop and this in itself will reduce drug-related crime by reducing the amount of money required for the drugs
overall rates of use will drop as the forbidden fruit thing is mostly eliminated, and the monitoring and control of rates of production goes into the hands of our elected officials who can then have some real control over how much drugs people have access to.
You want an example? Look at alcohol. Look at the deaths resulting from the widespread legal use of said drug, and tell me with a straight face that the answer is to unleash big pharma to make and market more chemical toys to play with.
yes, of course, the answer to a small part of the population mishandling something is prohibition. what about education? and your answer specifically implies that alcohol should be banned. yeah right, good luck with that. people only accepted prohibition of psychoactive drugs because they had available drug options, as well as of course the highly effective brainwashing techniques used to demonise the terrible drugs of the time - back in those days cannabis was the drug the filthy peasants used and that's why they attacked it.
fact is that people are using the drugs (amazing but true) anyway. and not enlarging the options for people is not helping, because it's a case of the devil you know. like meth, sure, it's got a lotta downsides, i know from personal experience. but what alternative is there?
at some point society as a whole is gonna have to really re-evaluate this whole business because the mess the current situation has created is a RESULT of prohibition. not the existence of any given drug.
lets say that somehow magically prohibition worked and all the illegal drugs suddenly evaporated. nobody was using illegal drugs. don't you think they'd turn to legal ones? do you even comprehend how big the legal drug abuse problem is now? oxycontin, vicodin, suboxone, valium whatever you care to name. legal drugs are more used in the wrong way than illegal ones. people use drugs for a reason and focusing on their behaviour when they misuse them is missing the point entirely.
he hardly mentions healthcare in the way the summary implies. He states that the pharma industry needs to get it's ass in gear, and that's about it.
legalisation would sure put more money in pharma's pockets hahaha.
it's not really a surprise that a redundant and useless industry like pharmaceuticals is having a hard time these days. same with cars. these are things that are pretty vacant. nobody needs a new car every two years, a properly built car should last 30 years at least with an engine change and regular maintenance. and most drugs are sold to cover up symptoms of other problems like misconceptions about how much of each nutrient we actually need and the subtle long term effects of things that are classified 'safe'.
when times are tough, frivolous things tend to lose the consumer dollar. maybe if big pharma started funding real health research and exploring recreational psychoactive drugs they'd see their bottom line pick up. proper results in the former and safe drugs in the latter increase lifespans and happiness which results in a better economy. this idiotic idea that people can't be trusted to administer psychoactive drugs responsibily basically means these very clever pharmacology people have a very narrow field. psychoactives is a wide open field and nobody's legally allowed to capitalise on it. big pharma is best equipped to. shame it's not likely to happen.
the legacy of highly effective brainwashing campains against psychoactive drugs is a society that is afraid of the idea of investigating the field at all, let alone making it into a proper industry. if the entrenched psychoactive drug industries didn't have the advantage of irrational ridiculous laws and ideas about psychoactive drug use i'm sure they'd be in the shitter these days too. i can tell you one thing for sure, caffeine would NOT be the most widely consumed drug if people had the option of a vibrant research industry exploring other potential stimulants. and i'd say the liquor industry would probably be begging for bailouts too if they had to compete with a legal cannabis industry.
and before i neglect this point... guess which industry is the most thoroughly full of redundant non-useful activity? finance? not to say banks don't perform critical useful functions in society, but the more abstract derivatives get the less relevant they get to reality.
My understanding is that this system is based on work by Nikola Tesla who discovered that it was possible to magnetically transmit power using resonance. By this meaning alternating pulses through a tuned coil on both sides at a tuned frequency. The vibrational energy of a guitar string transmits quite efficiently to adjacent strings on a guitar, it stands to reason that, if like in the example of a low resistance wired coil vibrating at a frequency tuned to the length and width of the coil, the loss of energy in transmission would be much lower if the receiver coil was tuned to resonate at the same frequency or a close harmonic (1 or 2 octaves). The only thing that I am unsure of is this theoretical negation of resistance, which I understand is what the whole idea is based on.
As far as safety goes, it would be quite safe. It is magnetism below a certain frequency and the only thing that might get damaged is inadvertently tuned circuits in electronics and possibly it may damage magnetic media that find themselves in the flux lines directly between receiver and transmitter. I believe the way to limit the distance that can be used is purely about current. Conversely the circuit is limited in capacity by this, putting too many loaded receiver circuits in its range will result in an overall diminution of power transfer to all of the devices.