This wasn't shot on film. The exposure time in digital has nothing to do with the frame rate.

I didn't realize it was shot digitally, but you're statement isn't completely true. If you shoot something at 48FPS then the slowest possible frame rate you can have is 1/48th of a second in digital. Digital does give you the chance have a faster shutter speed though.

Here's the kicker though, in film you have to double it. So 24fps would give you 1/48th shutter speed (half open half closed) meaning the motion blur for 48fps digital vs 24fps film should be the same, which explains why they picked 48fps - it afforded them the option to do either 48fps, slow motion or 24fps in post without giving anything up (except disk space).

Because the shutter is fixed, the exposure time of each frame is directly related to the frame rate. Lower frame rate = longer exposure = more motion blur in the frame. Shorter frame rate = shorter exposure = less motion blur in each frame. You need more light to shoot at a higher frame rate to keep the same aperture setting.

So, if they do project this at 24 frames per second (by throwing away half the frames in post), the frames will not have the necessary motion blur and it will actually look worse because half the frames are missing. This could also probably be fixed in post, but that would be a pretty big hack for such a large production.

hell they did worse than they did last quarter which, although still good, is a sign they're slowing somewhat, right?

Wrong. The holiday quarter and quarters containing new product launches have a huge influence over revenue. You can't measure things quarter to quarter, you have to go to the year ago quarter to check growth and even then you have to take into consideration if one or the other was a launch quarter.

If you want to know why certain people (yours truly included) are betting big on AAPL, consider this:

âoeJust two years after we shipped the initial iPad, weâ(TM)ve sold 67 million. To put that in some context, it took us 24 years to sell that many Macs, and five years for that many iPods, and over three years for that many iPhones

.

And also realize that the phone market is a billion+ handsets per year. Their customers love the iPhone more than any other phone and so the growth potential is huge.

But there's no great support for music, movie/tv, or podcast content that way.

Sure there is. iTunes + iTunes match is the best music in the cloud implementation out there. Movies and TV shows work fine as long as you bought them from iTunes (problem with non iTunes video of course is the studios). So have two apps, iCloud control panel and iTunes as a library manager for Audio/Video media.

If you leave your front door unlocked and I let myself in, do you file a lawsuit against Kwikset or do you have me arrested?

iMac, MacBook, MacBook Pro, Mac Pro - see where this is going?

Ditching the numbers from here on out makes sense. The next iPhone shouldn't be called the iPhone 5, because it's the 6th version. It makes a lot more sense to just call it "iPhone".

Wrong. Apps and music do not count towards your 5GB.

”Your purchased music, apps, books, and TV shows, as well as your Photo Stream, donâ(TM)t count against your free storage.”

In fact, the Mac App Store prevents you from paying for it twice. If you go to another Mac and enter your username and password, it knows you already purchased Lion and you get an "Install" button instead of a "Buy" button.

Uhm... have you actually even used Siri?

Wouldn't it look better to just leave the primary volume unencrypted and then have an encrypted hidden volume?

If they don't think to look for it then they won't ask?