yeah, the fact it takes a 2ghz cpu to decrypt standard definition fast enough should be sufficient to argue that it's not only a waste of time (keys are already cracked and now the algorithms are out in the wild) - the whole thing is defunct. it is only a matter of a very short time before they can't stop anyone plugging a computer into a hdmi output from an 'authorised' playback device and the computer pretends to be a monitor that knows the seekrits and voila, 100% pristine, unencrypted video dumped onto a hard drive (or piped into an encoder).

if only this was enough of a point to suggest they are wasting their energy and that any law that permits such stupidity is a bad law. let's not forget the stupid dvd/bluray disc is also encrypted and before it gets re-encrypted again, it has to be decrypted. that's three totally wasteful processing loads that are so big that for the same processing cost you could be decoding the whole stream in high definition if it wasn't encrypted.

i'll stop downloading bluray rips from the interwebs when they stop costing me twice as much electricity as is neccessary to decode their crappy movies. oh, and when they start realising that tiny little 2 metre high cinema screens, cruddy overpriced popcorn and no comfy seats and beers to drink are gonna make me think my 42 inch bravia and 8 channel surround system in my own loungeroom is much more pleasant. i'm sure i'm not alone and if the lawyers ever come to my house making overblown claims about how much i owe them i'll spend that money they are demanding on laywers to put them back in their place. not just violating the laws of cryptography but also the laws of free market economics. which on any other subject they will swear black and blue is 'The Way'.

oh and what are they going to do when high def eyegoggles finally hit the market? they better be hoping someone makes processors that are about 10x as calculation-per-second-per-watt more efficient than any portable media playing device can handle, cos otherwise the technology would be dead in the water.

hehe yep nothing to see here except wild claims from one site on the first page of results with not even an attempt to convince me with marketing woo. just 'we can make your 2d 3d kthxbye' puhlease.

it's possible to generate 3d models from multiple 2d image sources, microsoft was showing one off a year or two ago but that thing required at least two to generate any depth and of course the more different views the more accurate it would have been with regard to surface textures.

i personally want this technology to become more widely developed and available, being able to turn photos into a mesh even if it is relatively primitive would be immensely useful. for one thing it'd mean no more funny looking facial skin textures because the model would be directly derived from the photos rather than wrapped onto a model which may or may not match the image in the first place. plus i still haven't got around to learning how to use a 3d modelling program and being able take a real object and turn it into 3d would be very useful.

my biggest interest is in digitising body parts, specifically hands and feet, because they are extremely difficult to create perfectly fitting tailoured hm... 'garments' to put over them. if i could digitise my feet i could use that to warp a design or generate a new design and - for example - use it to generate a 3d printed prototype for moulding a urethane mould to make soles, for example, or to make gloves that have knuckle protection and knife-edge protection that actually protects those parts properly. on-demand fabrication of custom made items would be made so much simpler if the person simply needed to stand in front of a pair of mirrors oriented at 45 degrees either side, it would be enough, along with some kind of measuring scale, to be able to warp a clothing pattern automatically for a tailored fit without all the fiddling and prototyping required normally.

how the hell do you turn a fully 2d primary source into 3d? and 3d that doesn't make you want to scream 'FAKE!'...

if anyone can post a link in reply to my post showing that from a single 2d image source a 3d image can be created that doesn't look a bit wonky i'll stfu. sure, piece of cake converting all that 3d graphics to stereoscopic, but, and maybe i am not understanding the filming process with that expensive 70mm cinema type film, but there is definitely only one 'good' copy of all the shots in 2d, there isn't inadvertently gonna suddenly be a second one... i mean, i would guess you could work on something if there was a second cam recording at the same time at a slightly different but convergent view, but really, you'd have to have one on each side, that could give you a volume model that could let you do the 3d but even still... i call bullshit on converting star wars to 3d. i don't see how it could be done. i'd love to know how such a thing could be done. 3d won't work if you can't flesh out the occluded parts that you see to the left and right of the 2d original.

yeah, what i want to see is a lawyer who has a bit of a bee in their bonnet about police brutality and abuse of privilege doing him a lawsuit pro bono for having a gun waved at him without legal justification.

yeah, i'd say that'd be the next issue to come up for this guy, i bet the compensation for being threatened like that will cover the traffic fine HAHAHA stupid pig.

if cameras and microphones were allowed in courtrooms defendants would thusly be denied the right of due process due to making it into a media spectacle. whoever modded up the parent is a retard.

i'm modding this story down because it's rubbish. the whole crux of tfa is saying it's ridiculous to suggest that the genetic code for the brain is the... code... for the brain, that's what kurzweil is saying. i personally don't think he's far off maybe a little optimistic at 10 years but 20 years for full neural simulation of a human brain isn't so unlikely. we have simulations to a pretty decent level now, at least cockroach level intelligence. considering in 30 years we have gone from 8 bit 8086's and 6504's at sub-megahertz and such to 8 core 64 bit cpus running at 3+ ghz...

in a communication system, only passwords can be used. it's like keys and locks. you need one and the other. the problem is that you shouldn't need more than one password when they already authenticate you to an email address.

the big concern i have is all these sites who require passwords and logins - how do i know their methods of storing this data is secure? do they hash the input and do hash comparisons? or do they save them in cleartext on their database? and think about all the places you encounter online, doing business with every single one of them requires a password. shouldn't you be able to have email as the primary linkage and eliminate the extra passwords?

this is what openid is all about. i'm quite confident google knows how to keep my password secret, but i dunno about all the ecom sites i use. or the irc chatroom i use. and all the rest. it makes me nervous and by and large i've not been stung by id theft but i worry about it all the time. if regular people knew what i know i think openid would be standardised as a login tomorrow and all 'private data' would require unlocking with a PKI key provided from the openid provider at the unlocking from an authorised user. i don't think id security has had nearly the amount of thought it deserves.

i don't know how it wasn't obvious it could go to gigabit with very little tinkering. it's OPTICAL right?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fiber-optic_communication#Bandwidth-distance_product

Through a combination of advances in dispersion management, wavelength-division multiplexing, and optical amplifiers, modern-day optical fibers can carry information at around 14 Terabits per second over 160 kilometers of fiber [4]. Engineers are always looking at current limitations in order to improve fiber-optic communication, and several of these restrictions are currently being researched

14 terabits over 160km? does tony abbot's advisors do any research? presently, we have a copper network that can manage at best 24mbit at a max distance of 4km, at best. the NBN is an *optical* network, and is likely to be dispersed at network segments of less than 100km per run. lol. do i really need to point out the stupidity of saying it can't be gigabit? do i also need to point out the stupidity of saying a 100mbit network is not gonna be a piece of cake to roll out with optical in australian metro areas? what a retard.

anyway, i'm voting for the sex party. you can bet they are all on for the NBN. super HD pr0n here we come :)

apple taking other people's ideas and rolling them into new operating system extensions is nothing new. i remember many many classic macos extensions that started out as shareware and when they got really popular ended up in the next revision of the OS. well, some of those extensions were even free. the fact that apple is turning these copied ideas into *patents* however, is disturbing, yet more evidence about how software patents are evil.