That being said, I was at MAX and the demo was as amazing as it looks. Essentially, the software determines the motion/jitter of the camera at the time the photo was taken (i.e. figures out what caused the blur) and then undoes it. I can't imagine why they wouldn't include this in future version of photoshop.
Maybe in the future you could try sticking to your own job and let us do ours. We hate slow computers as much as you do (if not more), but what we hate more is getting reamed for going over-budget with needless upgrades.
The answer to the submission's query is so simple that it's mind-boggling that folks at the NYT and elsewhere haven't even considered it. Who will control the cost of the NYT on digital readers? The Consumer.
If iPad/Nook/Kindle/netbook/etc users aren't willing to pay the price for the product, the Times will have to bring the price down until enough people are willing to pay.
This is an ongoing problem with print media. They think they're still playing in the arena they've been in for the last 100 years. It ain't so, and the awakening will be a rude one for them.
They claim that the capability was designed to find lost or stolen laptops ONLY so if it was used in this manner is was apparently done so improperly. The Superintendent seems to claim that only the IT group can activate this or see the images so it remains to be seen as to what happened here but I have some thoughts....
From watching a video from another school district that I found in the comments on BoinBoing some schools sometimes see the students because the students run apps on their desktop that display video from their own WEB cam. Photobooth was the app mentioned in that story and the desktop appeared to be OSX so not likely the same software here but possible a similar program.
Lastly, if they have the capability to remotely control, as this other school did, then they could also be launching apps or installing apps that are allowing this kind of peeping - not cool IMO.
lol. "at the risk of being hungry"? I'M at the risk of being hungry
Anyway, you're not quoting the 1990 census, you're quoting heartsandminds.org, which automatically makes me skeptical of the claims. Let's try to find a non-biased source of info, shall we?
The stats do show that around 20% of American children live in "poverty", but the western definition of poverty is rather loose. According to wikipedia:
In 2007, 46% of poor households in the US owned their own homes, 30% had two or more cars, and 63% received cable or satellite TV.
When a "poor" family owns two cars, a TV, and all manner of electronics, it's ludicrous to claim that they can't feed their children. You're either saying that these people have a truly fucked up sense of priorities, or your claims make no sense, and these children are in fact getting plenty of food.
Link to Original Source