Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror

Comment: Re:It looks like a friggin video game. (Score 1) 336

by Sloppy (#48666809) Attached to: Ars: Final Hobbit Movie Is 'Soulless End' To 'Flawed' Trilogy

Jackie Chan is so many forms of awesome that it's not funny. (Well, no, actually.. he's funny too.) And you have provided Yet Another in the long list of ways he is awesome: as an example for why video fidelity is a good thing rather than a bad thing. (Which you'd think would be obvious, but some people don't get it. Until you mention Jackie Chan.)

Comment: Re:It looks like a friggin video game. (Score 3, Insightful) 336

by Sloppy (#48664109) Attached to: Ars: Final Hobbit Movie Is 'Soulless End' To 'Flawed' Trilogy

There is a difference though, the 24fps frames makes up for the low frame rate with motion blur. If the new digital HFR doesn't have that it will always feel like you're watching a baseball game instead of a swordfight.

Wait, am I watching the sword fight live, or recorded on obsolete media? And does the same go for the baseball game?

You inadvertently put your finger on the truth: that a sword fight should look like a baseball game.

Comment: 29,500 bodies is not tiny (Score 2) 359

by johncandale (#48657833) Attached to: North Korean Internet Is Down
29,500 US service men and women as of 2014 is not tiny. That is more then Bush sent on invasion in the first year to Afghanistan or Iraq. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... That is more then enough to fight, and within days the US air force in japan (11,000+ US airmen/women) would flatten NK and the US army/marines/navy (39,000+ United states sons and daughters) in japan would be readying to back up south korea. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U... Don't act like we don't have a huge presence in the area.

Comment: Diary entry from 2150 (Score 1) 440

by Sloppy (#48610355) Attached to: Federal Court Nixes Weeks of Warrantless Video Surveillance

Told kid about nano-cam dust today. He's only 4 years old, so he didn't know about them yet, and I'm trying to teach him basic hygiene. I explained for that for nearly a a hundred years we have all lived in an environment where other peoples' cameras are always in our homes. We track them in, on our shoes. The AC intake blows them in. The servers the cameras send video too, aren't owned by people who are practicing subterfuge. It's not like they snuck "spy" dust onto our porches in the hopes we'd track them in. It just happens; it's an inevitable consequence of the stuff blowing around everywhere.

My great grandparents complained about it. They thought they had a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes, because nanotech was new. They didn't see the dust, so they didn't know it was there. In the absence of sensual confirmation, the default expectation (at least to the layman) was that it wasn't there. That was naive, but my grandparents didn't work with nanotech or even use consumer models themselves, so perhaps their ignorance could be forgiven. (Just as my own ignorance of hyperspace can perhaps be forgiven, since I'm not a miner.)

My grandparents, though, grew up with the stuff, though it was still a bit expensive, so it wasn't totally ubiquitous yet. By their time, almost everyone at least knew about it, and if in a gathering of any five people you were to say "nobody sees me inside my home," chances were there would have been a few guffaws and someone would likely point out that the statement was likely incorrect. Sometimes the stuff got innocently tracked into your house, and sometimes it was manipulated into getting there, through subterfuge. The law and social norms lagged, though, and people debated privacy a lot.

By the time their children (my parents) grew up, though, it was all over. Everyone knew about nano-cam dust, and unless you did a rad-flash a few minutes earlier, fucking in your own bed was just as public as doing it in Times Square.

And now my kid knows too. It's just something everyone is expected to know about and deal with. If I were to write a story about it, I think I would set the story in the time of my grandparents, back when society was truly conflicted and in the midst of change. I bet those were interesting times.

Comment: What the goverment gives it can take away (Score 1) 295

by johncandale (#48605841) Attached to: French Cabbies Say They'll Block Paris Roads On Monday Over Uber
The government gave the monopolies to help the citizens because when taxis first came around they crowded the streets. Now the government can remove the monopoly because the taxi companies been abusing it. Again, to help the citizens. There is no duplicity here. They don't owe anything to the taxis that bought into their protected industry

Comment: Re:Fuck them. (Score 1) 295

by johncandale (#48605733) Attached to: French Cabbies Say They'll Block Paris Roads On Monday Over Uber
Agreed. Taxi's let uber enter the market simply by being terrible. Ever need a pick up in any city besides Manhattan from a taxi? Forget it. Uber got to my suburban Southern California house in 2 minutes. With just a few clicks. Not an hour which what happens when you call a taxi.

Interchangeable parts won't.

Working...