It's actually not film, but TV camera artifact from that era. It was very common for bright things to turn black like that.
Generally if you have high frame rate and good quality audio, you'll have broadcast had such artifacts.
I don't know the exact technical reason, but I've seen it many times in mid to late 60s period.

Any cinematographers/photographers here who can explain the artifact produced by her necklace at ~0:35?
I figured it must be a reaction of old film or lenses not being able to capture extreme brightness after already being set for a range of exposure, but that's just a half-informed guess.

On a technical note, my god that compression artifact... is this old? recent? Because it's almost unwatchable... even free p0rn videos had less compression artifacts than this.

I've been shouted down in meetings for the depth of field thing so many times. So many people don't understand how inappropriate it is for an interactive experience. Film is about controlling the viewers experience, games are about allowing the player to experience on their own. Not only is depth of field a completely unnatural artifact, its presence in games is a misunderstanding and misuse of the medium. Drives me nuts.
Also, most of the things the talking head says during the demo are devoid of any meaning. There's truthfully not a great deal impressive about the demo itself; these guys are wowing people with great artwork and flawless technical execution, (which is still nice), but the hardware/software used isn't as important as they're going on about.

Over the past few years there has been this trend towards simulating artifacts that you'd more commonly associate with film, presumably to give games a more cinematic feel. Some of them I find really annoying, like film grain, but others like lens flare can actually be used to communicate something you wouldn't otherwise be able to. Likewise, I find depth of field to sometimes be very nicely implemented, even where the effect is really quite strong. Alien: Isolation sort of made a gameplay mechanic out of it. I find it works best when the game only applies it in a context where it makes sense, like bringing up the scanner in Alien, or zooming into one your cities in Endless Legend. Where it fails, I think, is where it is always on and assumes that your crosshair is always going to be your focus.

Here's a funny yet serious thought -- will anyone watch this video and read our comments while they're dying on Mars, cold, alone, asphixiating?

If only I had taken South Dakota seriously..! Why GOD?! WHY!!!!!!!! ...why couldn't I have been as smart as those people commenting on Videosift? Those geniuses! No, instead, I moved to Mars -- for the evil ends of SCIENCE.

Like a convoluted Martian ecological science fiction horror murder mystery movie poster from the 1980s --

SHE MOVED TO MARS TO FIND LOVE...
BUT ALL SHE FOUND...
WERE THE MARTIAN MEAN STREETS...
A NEW WORLD WITHOUT LAW...
WITH ALIEN ARTIFACTS...
JASON VORHEES RESURRECTED...
AND VERY... LITTLE... OXYGEN.

FOLLOW THE MONEY TRAIL...
STRAIGHT TO CAPITAL HILL...
EARTH!

bum bum buuuuum -- THE TERRESTRIAL CONSPIRACY.

The bleeding colors aren't aberrations - it's misplaced colors due to bad post-processing (or rather copying) of the video. Chromatic aberrations would be the same effect pointing out to each corner - this is just all the colors bleeding to the right, for not to mention the VHS tracking artifacts.

the video effect is bad chromatic aberration which is an artifact of a bad lens. it's standard for movies and TV shows with no budget. blood dragon was just drawing from the same influences (80s-early 90s action/fantasy movies/TV, foreign action fantasy movies, taiwanese movies, hong kong movies, telugu movies, possibly nigerian movies) and the underground popularity of synthwave, chillwave, even italodisco, and chiptune. kung fury could have pull some influence from blood dragon but both are based on 30 year old cliches so that influence is a bit meaningless since the source material is so redily available.

The necessity [of the process] is debatable.

Much of the process exists in order to facilitate the creation of 'artifacts' (actual term used).

Because the oversight folks on the govt side are not technical, and can not interpret test data, they are reduced to interpreting the process - under the assertion that proper process leads to proper development.

Someone has to generate the documents for the oversight folks to review, so contractors have people on hand to write the papers. Those people are not engineers themselves - so they suffer the same 'not technical' limitation as the oversight folks. So they strictly publish documents pertaining to the process taken for each task performed.

For actual 'test data interpretation', the engineers themselves are tasked to create those portions of the documentation. Essentially, the engineers grade themselves, often under a basic understanding that management wants the best light shed on the results.



If the government actually cared for honest effective oversight, they would instead toss all these paper requirements, fire all the government oversight 'English degree' deadweights (non-technical degrees all the way across the sky), and instead contractually embed government employed engineers into the contractors.

Then government paid engineers can participate in the program development, and subsequently be tasked to give short and sweet personal reports on the progress without having to worry about what the contractor thinks of the report (contractor does not pay them, and can't fire them).

-scheherazade

This video lacks a lot of salient details.

Yes, the F35 is aiming at the A10 because contractors want jobs (something to do).

However, the strength of the A10 is also its weakness. Low and slow also means that it takes you a long time to get to your troops. Fast jets arrive much sooner (significantly so). A combination of both would be ideal. F35 to get there ASAP, and A10 arriving later to take over.

It's not really worth debating the merit of new fighters. You don't wait for a war to start developing weapons.

Yes, our recent enemies are durkas with small arms, and you don't need an F35 to fight them - but you also don't even need to fight them to begin with - they aren't an existential threat. Terrorist attacks are emotionally charged (well, until they happen so often that you get used to hearing about them, and they stop affecting people), but they are nothing compared to say, a carpet bombing campaign.

The relevance of things like the F35 is to have weapons ready and able to face a large national power, should a nation v nation conflict arise with a significant other nation. In the event that such a conflict ever does, you don't want to be caught with your pants down.

Defense spending costs scale with oversight requirements.

Keep in mind that money pays people. Even materials are simply salaries of the material suppliers. The more people you put on a program, the more that program will cost.

Yes, big contractors make big profits - but the major chunk of their charges is still salaries.

Let me explain what is going on.

Remember the $100 hammers?
In fact, the hammer still cost a few bucks. What cost 100+ bucks was the total charges associated with acquiring a hammer.
Everything someone does in association with acquiring the hammer, gets charged to a charge code that's specific for that task.

Someone has to create a material request - $time.
Someone has to check contracts for whether or not it will be covered - $time.
Someone has to place the order - $time.
Someone has to receiver the package, inspect it, and put it into a received bin - $time.
Someone has to go through the received items and assign them property tags - $time.
Someone has to take the item to the department that needed it, and get someone to sign for it - $time.
Someone has to update the monthly contract report - $time.
Someone has to generate an entry in the process artifacts report, detailing the actions taken in order to acquire the hammer - $time.
Someone on the government side has to review the process artifacts report, and validate that proper process was followed (and if not, punish the company for skipping steps) - $time.

Add up all the minutes here and there that each person charged in association with getting a hammer, and it's $95 on top of a $5 hammer. Which is why little things cost so much.

You could say "Hey, why do all that? Just buy the hammer".
Well, if a company did that, it would be in trouble with govt. oversight folks because they violated the process.
If an employee bought a hammer of his own volition, he would be in trouble with his company for violating the process.
The steps are required, and if you don't follow them, and there is ever any problem/issue, your lack of process will be discovered on investigation, and you could face massive liability - even if it's not even relevant - because it points to careless company culture.

Complex systems like jet fighters necessarily have bugs to work out. When you start using the system, that's when you discover all the bits and pieces that nobody anticipated - and you fix them. That's fine. That's always been the case.



As an airplane example, imagine if there's an issue with a regulator that ultimately causes a system failure - but that issue is just some constant value in a piece of software that determines a duty cycle.

Say for example, that all it takes is changing 1 digit, and recompiling. Ez, right? NOPE!

An engineer can't simply provide a fix.

If something went wrong, even unrelated, but simply in the same general system, he could be personally liable for anything that happens.

On top of that, if there is no contract for work on that system, then an engineer providing a free fix is robbing the company of work, and he could get fired.

A company can't instruct an engineer to provide a fix for the same reasons that the engineer himself can't just do it.

So, the process kicks in.

Someone has to generate a trouble report - $time.
Someone has to identify a possible solution - $time.
Someone has to check contracts to see if work on that fix would be covered under current tasking - $time.
Say it's not covered (it's a previously closed [i.e. delivered] item), so you need a new charge code.
Someone has to write a proposal to fix the defect - $time.
Someone has to go deal with the government to get them to accept the proposal - $time.
(say it's accepted)
Someone has to write new contracts with the government for the new work - $time.
To know what to put into the contract, "requrements engineers" have to talk with the "software engineers" to get a list of action items, and incorporate them into the contract - $time.
(say the contract is accepted)
Finance in conjuration with Requirements engineers has to generate a list of charge codes for each action item - $time.
CM engineers have to update the CM system - $time.
Some manager has to coordinate this mess, and let folks know when to do what - $time.
Software engineer goes to work, changes 1 number, recompiles - $time.
Software engineer checks in new load into CM - $time.
CM engineer updates CM history report - $time.
Software engineer delivers new load to testing manger - $time.
Test manager gets crew of 30 test engineers to run the new load through testing in a SIL (systems integration lab) - $time.
Test engineers write report on results - $time.
If results are fine, Test manager has 30 test engineers run a test on real hardware - $time.
Test engineers write new report - $time.
(assuming all went well)
CM engineer gets resting results and pushes the task to deliverable - $time.
Management has a report written up to hand to the governemnt, covering all work done, and each action taken - documenting that proper process was followed - $time.
Folks writing document know nothing technical, so they get engineers to write sections covering actual work done, and mostly collate what other people send to them - $time.
Engineers write most the report - $time.
Company has new load delivered to government (sending a disk), along with the report/papers/documentation - $time.
Government reviews the report, but because the govt. employees are not technical and don't understand any of the technical data, they simply take the company's word for the results, and simply grade the company on how closely they followed process (the only thing they do understand) - $time.
Company sends engineer to government location to load the new software and help government side testing - $time.
Government runs independent acceptance tests on delivered load - $time.
(Say all goes well)
Government talks with company contracts people, and contract is brought to a close - $time.
CM / Requirements engineers close out the action item - $time.

And this is how a 1 line code change takes 6 months and 5 million dollars.

And this gets repeated for _everything_.

Then imagine if it is a hardware issue, and the only real fix is a change of hardware. For an airplane, just getting permission to plug anything that needs electricity into the airplanes power supply takes months of paper work and lab testing artifacts for approval. Try getting your testing done in that kind of environment.



Basically, the F35 could actually be fixed quickly and cheaply - but the system that is in place right now does not allow for it. And if you tried to circumvent that system, you would be in trouble. The system is required. It's how oversight works - to make sure everything is by the book, documented, reviewed, and approved - so no money gets wasted on any funny business.

Best part, if the government thinks that the program is costing too much, they put more oversight on it to watch for more waste.
Because apparently, when you pay more people to stare at something, the waste just runs away in fear.
Someone at the contractors has to write the reports that these oversight people are supposed to be reviewing - so when you go to a contractor and see a cube farm with 90 paper pushers and 10 'actual' engineers (not a joke), you start to wonder how anything gets done.

Once upon a time, during the cold war, we had an existential threat.
People took things seriously. There was no F'ing around with paperwork - people had to deliver hardware. The typical time elapsed from "idea" to "aircraft first flight" used to be 2 years. USSR went away, cold war ended, new hardware deliveries fell to a trickle - but the spending remained, and the money billed to an inflated process.

-scheherazade

Burden or gridlock. Those are subjective terms that connote a desire to catch up. Catching up helps no one involved in law enforcement.

They terms you should look for are "Artifacts and metrics".

Every department must spend more than it did last year. This year's funding is what it is because of what was spent last year. Next year's funding depends on what will be spent this year.

A lack of funding leads to downsizing and furloughs. Best way to secure funding for next year is to spend this year.

Money has colours. You get different charge codes for different actions.
Some charge codes are considered low pri / overhead. Others are considered necessary. If you're charging mostly overhead, and very little necessary, you have bad metrics. If you charge mostly towards necessary and little to overhead, you have good metrics.

Police have to arrest/charge people to look productive. That generates metrics showing that police are needed. If they can make sure to spend at least as much money on enforcement this year as last year, their jobs are secured. A department that's mostly sitting around, is a department that is not critical, and can get a budgetary cut.
So long as police are employed, they will find people to arrest/charge/ticket/whatever. Even if they have to stretch for it.

The same situation applies in court. Prosecutors are looking to maximize their convictions metrics. Their job is to get people convicted. It's not that they /want/ to convict people. That's simply how they charge their time, and how they get good metrics.

Judges don't necessarily care how a case goes. They simply want to charge as much time to judging as possible.

Actually "catching up" serves the interests of no one. And it's not that people are sitting down saying "Hey, how can I make myself look necessary". Some people do, sure. But most people are simply thinking "I gotta stay/look busy".

The "system" takes care of getting things to run amok.
Everyone stays busy so they can charge productive looking time codes, so they don't get scolded by management or downsized.
Departments spend all their allocated money so they don't get under funded.
Analytically, it looks like they are saturated, so they get more funding, and bring on more people.
The new people need to stay busy, and the cycle repeats.
The beast grows.

In effect, burden and gridlock are the food that keeps the beast fed.

This isn't simply a law enforcement issue. It's how government works. Every program makes it a goal to spend all of their funding, and look as busy as possible. No one wants to be cut, and looking like you're not busy is an easy way to be 'it' when there is a cut.

Rememer : All money is spent on payroll.
You don't pay the earth for anything.
If you buy materials, that's simply paying the payroll for the material supplier.
The entire cost of anything, is the total cost of all employees.
The only way to ever reduce costs, is to reduce how much someone makes.
Either by cutting the amount paid, or by cutting jobs.
Every year there's talk of reigning in government spending.
That means that every year, there's talk of cutting jobs.

TBH, newtboy, I don't know your background, or how much experience you have around government crap. I donno if this all sounds like a joke, but it really is this stupid.

-scheherazade

I'm not sure he answered the question, or at least that wasn't his focus... rather than explain why privacy matters, he stressed that we 'like' privacy. Don't get me wrong, I like it too, and I don't see that there are any overarching security or economic concerns that consistently outweigh my liking it, but it would be interesting to hear if there are arguments that more directly address why privacy matters.

As far as I could tell, he had three overarching points:

1. Privacy is culturally and psychologically valuable to us, and we suffer if we feel that this private sphere is taken away from us. This is fine, but it doesn't really tell me why privacy 'matters', just that it's an artifact of our current civilization and culture. A similar argument could be made for religion, which I don't think is a necessary but certainly a very common phenomenon.

2. Privacy allows for dissent against tyranny and corruption to grow. This, to me, seems a little fallacious - in a system of asymmetrical privacy, where your government has more privacy than you, this might be true, but in a system of very high transparency on all sides it would be very possible to effectively express and build a dissenting voice. It seems dissent is possible in both very private and very open societies, but not in societies where privacy is only granted to the state.

3. Privacy is needed for creativity and unique expressions of talent. This might be true on an individual level (though it might also be a case of overlapping with #1) but transparency and openness are also facilitators of collective creativity. It might be that we need a private creative space for traditional acts of genius, but who's to say that we can't supersede this with crowd-sourced creativity in the future?

I'm not arguing in favor of any measures to take away privacy, but it would be interesting to see some more rigorous arguments for the need for privacy. Looking at what Snowden did, for example, we see that his actions might contribute to increased privacy in the long term, but in the short term he actually removed privacy (from the government) and made the equation a little more balanced in that sense.

This is fun. Looking at the reflection, and knowing pretty intimately how reflective surfaces work, it still seems questionably-real. At 0:43-0:44, the reflective angle shows a large strip of earth-tone well above the horizon line, and also above the reflective bend of the door-handle curvature meaning it's not an artifact of the surface angle. The large strip of earth-colored element that's splitting the mans reflection up the middle in the same frame very well could be an angular reflective artifact, or just the reflection of a low-angle shot between his legs. (just to cut off any naysayers along those lines).
It is as clear a sky as glass despite the 'willy willy', and that seems supported by the reflection. I actually think this might be legitimate. If it's not... Well fucking-A, I'll go back to school if it's not.

Definitely not irrelevant. I was just reading an article from MIT where they were able to extract audio from film footage that did not have an audio source. If we really need to hear what is being said in that cop car we could always have MIT extract the audio from the source file - it'll have artifacts but you would be able to hear exactly what the cops are saying in that car.

The only thing that gives me hope is that sometimes people see the light:

Absolutely Uncertain (You Tube video by “Irina”)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jgvMGLdc908&list=PLC2A32D103123C08E#t=73
18-minute mini-documentary follows the journey of Irina, a 23-year-old liberal, Jewish New Yorker who voted for Obama in 2008

Why I'm burning my last bridge with Obama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VIMnIh10po0
Join me as I wreck my last artifact of support for the war criminal-in-chief!! *I figured out the fraud a while back, but recently found this shirt in my closet

The problem with this country is it doesn't read. It doesn't inform itself on the issues. I'd probably still be a major nigger hating racist if it wasn't for books. If you want the skinny on that go to my Facebook Notes and read my "Racism Speech" which really isn't a speech so much as it is part of my memoirs to my two boys.

I wasn't really into this Islam thing until I happened to read The Haj by Leon Uris and Because They Hate by Brigitte Gabrielle almost back to back. I'll submit the following to give you an idea of what happened.

“we may describe it, (jihad), as a surgeon's lancet and not a butcher's knife.” Mahmoud Mohammed Taha (I'm sure there are about 200 million dead people that would disagree with him. And this from the guy who's been called the Mahatma Ghandi of Islam.)

About two years ago I ordered some reading material, including Taha's "Second Message", and a “study” Koran to find out what this "Islam thing" was all about. When I was sixteen I was chanting nam yo ho renge kyo to a piece of paper, (gahonzen?), having NO idea what I was doing. A few years later, hair down to my ass and a knapsack on my back, I hitchhiked cross country, got saved in Nashville Tenn. and went to live on a Christian farm in Mansfield Ohio. (Not the prison.) My gra'mom called me a "seeker". As I said, there came a time when I wanted to understand this "religion of peace". It was Humaid's article on jihad I found in my Summarized Bukhari that decided “things” for me.

If Islam is the “religion of peace”, where in Sheikh Abdullah bin Humaid's article on jihad can I find the equivalent of “Love Thy Neighbor” and “good will toward men”? And explain its prominence, and significance almost as an “Introduction”, in a book that's described as “the most authentic and true among the books of the Prophet”: My Summarized Sahih Al-Bukhari. Also address “jihad” as it's defined in Reliance of the Traveller and answer the same question. (Chapter O-9.0: Jihad O: “Jihad means to war against non-Muslims, and is etymologically derived from the word mujahada signifying warfare to establish the religion.” And explain why the “greater” jihad is only mentioned once here and never seen again in this “Classic Manual of Islamic Sacred Law”.)

Compare Humaid's “jihad” and Emmet Fox' Sermon on the Mount and tell me which one best represents a spirit of Love and “compassion”.

Lastly; would you pick Sheikh bin Humaid to sit on a Human Rights Commission? (That's a trick question by the way.)

Maybe you can throw in an explanation of the Jews are “monkeys, pigs and rats” on page 656 and the part where Mo says, “if somebody (a Muslim) discards his religion, kill him” on page 613 in the chapter on Jihad.

Also, explain why Humaid's “jihad” shouldn't be “Exhibit A” in refuting the “religion of peace” claim.

I've posted this many times to many Muslims and have yet to get a single response. Well, I did receive a response from some goofball named “Dr.” Mohsen El-Guindy asking me to read his books. Instead I downloaded a bunch of his articles. Which were pure rants. An Imam, sidestepped it by telling me I had to “study Islam” to gain a greater understanding.

Jihad in the Qur'an and Sunnah by 'Sheikh Abdullâh bin Muhammad bin Humaid
ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?233460-Jihad-in-the-Qur-an-and-Sunnah&s=4df3fc2e4e0596eb3b38115ef4b8f506 ),

Subscribe to Jihad/Campus Watch and the Middle East Forum/Quarterly, Middle East Media Research Institute (MEMRI), Gatestone Institue, FrontPage Magazine, American Thinker,The Clarion Project, Cross Muslims: Muhammad unveiled, Religion of Peace (dot com) and read Raymond Ibrahim, Efraim Karsh, Patrick Poole, Caroline Glick, Bat Ye'or and others.

“She's Buried Chest High”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yXdy5Fwwfzg

“An appeaser is one who feeds the crocodile hoping it will eat him last. Victory will never be found by taking the line of least resistance.” Winston Churchill

“What the horn is to the rhinoceros, what the sting is to the wasp, the Mohammedan faith is to the Arabs of the Sudan-a faculty of offence. All the warlike operations of Mohammedan peoples are characterised by fanatacism” Winston Churchill

“While Hindus, Sikhs, Christians, Parsees and Jews, along with several million adherents of an animistic religion, all coexisted in relative harmony, one religion that would not accept compromise stood out from the rest: Islam.” Mahatma Gandhi