First, if fish (or other marine animals) were eating the plastic (and there is a lot of evidence that they are) then they would also be starving to death (as they can't digest the plastic, and it fills up their digestive systems). When they die, the plastic would be returned to the ocean, and we would see it in our assays. So I don't think that the plastic getting eaten is the obvious solution.

Second, as anyone who has gotten sunburned while swimming knows, water doesn't block ultraviolet light very effectively, so plastic floating near the top of the water column would be exposed to a lot of UV. Plastic breaks down pretty quickly when exposed to UV, so we may just be seeing the natural destruction of the plastic by sunlight (and, I suppose, that plastic that has been partially broken down by exposure to UV might be more easily consumed by bacteria, but that's pure speculation).

Third, maybe we aren't measuring the amount of plastic in the ocean correctly. If the plastic is being consumed, or is sinking to the ocean floor, then we might easily be missing it. Also, the plastic might well not be evenly distributed across the ocean: it may be collecting in specific places due to winds and ocean currents. If we are not collecting samples evenly over the entire ocean, then we could be missing some high concentration areas.

I doubt that this means we can all breath a sigh of relief and decide that dumping plastic in the oceans is no big deal. I also doubt that this means that plastic is a much bigger problem than we thought (how could it be a bigger problem then we thought? People have been screaming about it like it was a sign of the end-times!). It is interesting, however, and I would like to know why our measurements don't match our expectations.

Again with the "your." Unless the powers that be are going to force people to install e-Gnomes, the "Internet of Things" is not coming to my garden.

Couldn't you have shoe-horned that in somewhere a little more relevant? Or did you not even read my post?

It seems to be entirely unremarkable that a story told from only one perspective - presumably the one that shows the main "character" in a positive light - should get good reviews.

Tell it from both sides and you risk leaving the audience with unsatisfyingly ambiguous feelings about the whole affair; it's almost as if life isn't black and white!

No-one likes that in a movie.

I really hate all this "your" crap in headlines. It won't be coming to my car, because I already have a car and don't need a new one, and when I do get one it probably isn't going to have all this fancy-schmancy crap got-to-be-connected crap in it. It's not so much because I'm a privacy nerd, I'm just cheap.

It's an <a> with an href of "ahref=".

If you click it you'll destroy us all!

Who pays for the surgery to implant it?

Get one of these cards, and you can do it as many times as you like.

Yes... but that hasn't made any difference to the actual situation. British TV still is only ever 50Hz.

"25p" looking-stuff - higher dramas, films, etc - is still also all actually 50i (50Hz).

If by "some" you mean "three." And one of those isn't out yet.

True. What you actually end up with (AIUI) is 24fps-shot video, pulled down to 60fps (interlaced) for broadcast - since it's preferable for channels to stick to one broadcast format rather than continuously changing depending on what they're currently broadcasting - which then gets pulled back up to 24fps by your TV to get rid of the pulldown judder it detects, and which you would otherwise see on your screen (due to the AA-BBB repetition).

They're clearly examples to clarify the submitter's question.

Surely, then, your answer to the question - "are text editors and various languages linked?" - is a simple "no," rather than "the question makes no sense!"

That is, of course, only if one assumes it is meant to be answered solely for oneself, and not meant - as it pretty clearly is - to cover the generality of programming around the world. Note also that the "linkedness" under discussion is a statistical property, not a binary one. You may not "program into any language with just one of those editors" but you might favour an editor for a particular language.

Too late, even before this post.

Could we not just discuss it like normal humans instead? If I asked you to call me an ambulance, would you point out that you couldn't logically do so because I'm clearly not an ambulance, and then go on your way?

You'd be a shoe-in for an anti-Turing test.

No, that doesn't make sense - not if your source video is 50fps (I assume GP was asking for it in addition to 60fps, not instead of). If your input video is 50fps, you should keep it at 50fps. You won't make it look any better on a 60Hz panel just by converting it to 60fps (unless you're going to do some fancy motion-compensation thing, which I doubt YouTube will, and will in any case not work brilliantly all the time), and in fact you'll end up making it worse on at any other display frequency, including 50Hz.

While it presumably does help to have some nice clean mesh data from the original video, decompressed video can be interpolated pretty well by modern TVs. Sure, it fails at high speeds, but presumably Framefree wouldn't get it right under all circumstances either.

In any case, if you don't have a real input frame at the chosen moment of time, whatever gets displayed is going to be an estimation however you do it. Sending real 60fps video is always going to win out over interpolating 30fps, so to say "frame rate doesn't matter" with Framefree is stretching it a bit.

Uh... HDTV has nothing to do with it. Lots of shows were shot at 60Hz before, and those same kinds of shows (sports, news, "real" stuff) are still being shot at 60Hz.