Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Hallelujah! (Score 1) 423

by daithesong (#35800104) Attached to: <em>The Hobbit</em> Filming at 48fps
It is truly bizarre that we have greatly raised the spatial resolution, but the temporal resolution has remained stuck at the appallingly juddery 24 fps. I find movies unpleasant because of it. On any reasonable sized screen (and particularly movie theaters), even a slow pan results in the scene moving large distances on the screen every 1/24th of a second. It is ugly, pure and simple; there is no positive aesthetic in visual judder.

Comment: Re:Mirror, Mirror! (Score 2) 108

by daithesong (#35722770) Attached to: Britain's Oldest Working Television For Sale
Mirrors don't flip horizontally or vertically, jeepers. They flip 'inside out'. *We* flip people horizontally because it makes more sense for us to use their left-right symmetry, imagine that we are where the image is, and keep the image standing on its feet. Take a mirror you think of us being a 'horizontal flip' mirror and stand in front of it; yep, that looks horizontal. Now lie on the floor in front of it. Horizontal or vertical? It's *your mind* doing the flipping...

Comment: Many factors at play (Score 1) 281

by daithesong (#35664954) Attached to: Does 3D Make Your Head Happy Or Ache?
There are lots of factors here. - our eyes usually focus and converge for the same distance; stereo has the convergence change while the focus distance (to screen) is constant - the illusion of movement leads to inner-ear saying "no you're not" when your eyes think you are - on the other hand, if you DO move, your viewpoint does NOT change (for stereo, it does for auto-stereo) - we're only just beginning to understand production values in stereo (e.g. you can't cross-fade, don't switch camera rapidly, when switching be careful with the distance to the object of interest, be very careful with overlays like credits, and so on) Obviously some of these can be dealt with under some circumstances, some not. It may well be that if your brain develops while being exposed to some of these, it will be much more accommodating. Exposure to stereo or auto-stereo might be good for children, who knows?

Comment: Re:I don't get it (Score 1) 267

by daithesong (#35550044) Attached to: Facebook Wedding Photos Result In Polygamy Arrest In Michigan
presumed (exclusive) mutual support, presumed support of children. If it's done without knowledge and consent of the multiple spouses, then there's entering into a contract under false pretences (they all are led to believe they have the exclusion attention of the guilty party), and so on.

Comment: domains should follow jurisdictions... (Score 1) 124

by daithesong (#35482132) Attached to: The Politics of ICANN
the top-level domains should follow places that can, if they wish, define what qualifies a name. So, for example, Japan says you must be a registered company to have a .cp.jp domain, so these addresses are much more trustworthy. This also means it's clear who arbitrates a dispute, and under what rules. Using only UN-recognized country-codes as top-level domain names does not 'give the UN control', it gives people control through their governments (to the extent that they have control, but that's not an Internet question). Non-geographic TLDs are a bad idea -- unless you happen to be the corporation set to make money off them.

Comment: the continued confusion of terms does not help (Score 1) 663

by daithesong (#34862308) Attached to: Ars Thinks Google Takes a Step Backwards For Openness
It's (probably) deliberate, but the continued confusion of orthogonal axes really doesn't help the debate.
H.264 is open, anyone may contribute to ISO/ITU projects (including those holding patents). WebM is closed, it was developed and is owned by On2/Google.
H.264 costs money to license and deploy; it is not free. On2/Google are currently the only bona-fide identified owners of the technology in WebM (as far as I know), and they do not charge for it.
There are open-source implementations of H.264 and other royalty-bearing codecs. I am aware of at least one codec (which I can't name) which had a free license but for which the source was only available on agreement; it was closed-source.
So, open/proprietary usually refers to the development process and the ownership and control of the specification. Open-source/closed-source refers to the availability and visibility of the source code. Royalty-free/royalty-bearing refer to whether payment has to be made to patent owners in order to deploy. I suspect that almost any combination of these choices is possible.

Comment: but...would it work...? (Score 1) 173

by daithesong (#34412318) Attached to: FTC Proposes Do Not Track List For the Web
'do not call' works because its meaning is clear and I can easily detect if it's violated (someone calls me, duh). But browsers cannot effectively 'stop' tracking unless they refuse to load URLs that appear 'personalized', change IP address very often, refuse cookies, and so on, and probably not even then. And if the site continues to manage to track me, and correlate that tracking with other activity, how do I know? Unless the data comes back to me, I probably don't.

Comment: Re:Fear (Score 1) 741

by daithesong (#34287738) Attached to: Bruce Schneier vs. the TSA
The best way (long-term) to deal with terrorists is to make them irrelevant, by not responding to them. Once you make it clear you'll make arbitrarily large changes to your policies and practices in response to a terrorist event, you have given them the lever they want; all they need now is to find the right event for the effect they want. Bush handed that to them on a plate -- actually, two plates, both domestic and foreign policy. Brilliant.

One of the most overlooked advantages to computers is... If they do foul up, there's no law against whacking them around a little. -- Joe Martin

Working...