You mean the millions of installed projectors worldwide is not a hardware issue? So what if you can manage to shoot film/video at 500 frames per second if the display everyone is using to project it can only do 24? Now you have to do crazy temporal blurring to get the correct motion blur for that output rate, or your movie looks all jerky.

Most scripted TV shows are still shot at 24fps and go through the same slowdown to 23.967 and repeated frame/field pulldown as films on TV.

Industry (2D film) projectors generally run at a refresh rate of 48Hz (I suppose some might run at 72Hz), flashing each image twice (or sometimes thrice) before advancing to the next frame. I have no idea how RealD 3D works.

Of course, if you're using digital projection, you're also dealing with DLP. I think I have been in theaters with 1-chip DLP, but most should have 3-chip. (with 1-chip, the three colors are projected in succession with a color wheel changing the color or the light. if you move your head or eyes fast enough, you should be able to see the colors separate).

Then there is IMAX, which can have a few possibilities. I don't know how digital projection of 3D works with IMAX, but I do know the good ol 70mm. There are two possibilities for 70mm IMAX 3D. Both involve two projectors, though one is two physically separate projectors, where the other is two projectors fused together (top/bottom) sharing a light source. Both methods use polarizing filters to differentiate the eye images. (Here is a segment from How It's Made where they build the latter. I can't find the English version I saw before.)

I have only seen 3D movies in 70mm IMAX, and then only 2 films. I got a headache each time. It has to do with the fixed scene focus. If I am looking somewhere other than the focal point of the scene, my eyes fight a losing battle trying to bring the image into focus.

That would be 120Hz frame interpolation. I turned it off the first day I had my new set with it. It not only made everything just look wrong for film/tv, but it also introduced a jitter at each cut. after a cut, the action would speed up for a second or so before slowing back down to the normal speed.

like that was hard. the windows 95 era keys followed a very simple verification scheme.

PowerPole is a product of Anderson Power Products, not Amphenol.

The member of parliament in charge of IT believes that if you oppose filtering, you support child-porn. It's simply a case of incompetent people in positions of power.

I'm not so sure... That seems like the perfect way to get your desired filtering agenda passed: link opposition to support for child porn, so that nobody would sabotage their political career opposing it.

But... what does God need with a Klondike bar?

I want the content to be released on physical media. Sure, I may then transfer the content to a more convenient form for my consumption, but I still want the original physical, (preferably) lossless copy. That way I can buy it and not be left at the mercy of a company that may not be around in 10, 20, 30, 50 years when I want to watch, listen to, or share some old piece of culture. If it is kept "in the cloud" on their servers, I can't be sure I can get to it then. The company may no longer be around in order to supply the content upon request.

Ignore for a moment the print/electronic differences between a print book and an ebook. If I were to buy a print copy of Nineteen Eighty-Four from Amazon, they cannot come into my house in the middle of the night and remove it from my collection. However, they can (and have) done the same with their ebook system.

Additionally, with Redbook audio CDs, the audio is in PCM, rather than MP3 or AAC. If another new CODEC comes down the road, I can re-encode my CDs (which I may have also ripped to a lossless CODEC such as FLAC) into that new CODEC without generational loss. DVD and Bluray aren't quite as good in that regard, but the amount of space needed for a lossless version of those would be far too large, so I forgive that. Not that this matters to the content producers. They would prefer you re-buy stuff with every format change. What they really would like is a leak-proof pipe from their source to your eyeball or eardrum, and charge you every time you watch or listen to the content.

Don't forget the dreaded trap street...

Business are REQUIRED to take cash. This includes such things as apartment rental fees. "This note is legal tender for all debts, public and private"

In the rent direction, if you try to pay in cash and the owner declines, for several months, and then tries to take you to court or evict over failure to pay rent, the judge will laugh the case out of court. I've heard at least one such story. The owner wound up having to null out the past debt, too.

I did watch the video. All he really said about the matter is that other SCMs, you don't always get back what you put in. The only other marginally related thing was at the end of the talk (40 minutes later!) about git using the SHA-1 hashes to verify the integrity. Ok, so git verifies the integrity, but that still does not demonstrate how other SCMs corrupt data. (I am not going to count filesystem corruption against the SCM, either. There are a few filesystems that regularly check the integrity of the data stored on them, which is one way to counteract this problem.)

You're trying to make a persuasive argument that using SVN is a bad choice, and the only thing you have provided to back that claim up is a video of Linus saying the exact same statement you made. So far, I have not found any evidence to back up this argument.

I'm going to guess your (and Linus') reasoning is that because git has the SHA-1 hashes, and checks them, that you get the same data out as you put in. I have not seen anything that ensures that git will not silently overwrite or discard data in the case that there is a hash collision.

Yes, the probability is small, but that does not mean you can ignore it completely. There is a small probability that a hard drive will be DOA (yes, gigantic compared to hash collisions, but bear with me). However, I have had the bad luck of having two different model drives, purchased 9 months apart be bad out of the box. This is without buying large quantities of drives. Just because some is statistically improbable does not mean that it cannot happen.

I'm going to have to ask for more concrete demonstrations of that claim than "Linus said so" before I believe it.

I don't understand why your lawyers have a say in the matter, but I think you are out of luck. ANY hash function is going to have collisions. That is just the nature of the beast. The only thing you get from SHA-2 or SHA-3 over SHA-1 is better probability of not colliding, and a more difficult time of deliberately creating a collision.