Here in Chile, I'm not sure where those phones are. You see iPhone and Android everywhere.
My best guess would be people upgrading from a feature phone to a smartphone for the first time. They might buy a really low end Windows phone because of Nokia (they dominated the market for ages) but I have never seen a high end one here in the wild.
In this case, Mike (Gabe) has been using Glass for a couple of days (week?). He actually posted his thoughts on it and one of the issues was the rudeness in pointing a camera an mike at everyone.
Does anyone what the legal implications are if someone takes a picture of my baby and Instagram sells it to somebody for an ad? Would they need some sort of release?
Because I can delete my own photos but what what happens with other people's?
Having it be a baby confuses the issue because babies can't give consent, but if someone took a picture of you and you're not an instagram user and thus never agreed to their TOS and that photo is used for commercial advertising you'd have a very strong case to sue in many places of the world.
Using the identifiable image of a person (even a private non-celebrity) in a non-editorial commercial manner is not permitted in most places, especially (bur not only) if the photo was taken in a place where there is an implied right to privacy (someone's home, etc, rather than outside in public). This is why photographers are anal about making sure all people who are identifiable in their photos sign a model release form if they plan to sell the photo for non-editorial uses.
If instagram ran this idea by their lawyers I'm sure they've been informed that they should absolutely never use any of these images for advertising if there is an identifiable person in it because otherwise the risk of being sued for it eventually is far too great.
I was wondering exactly the same thing, because you do need a model release from all identifiable people in a photo if you wish to use it for non-editorial commercial purposes. Courts have ruled that "identifiable" does not necessarily mean "can see their face" - if you can see any significant part of a person, you need to get a model release before it can be used commercially (e.g. in an ad).
You do not need a model release if the photo is taken for artistic/personal reasons (even if prints of the photo are sold as artistic items).
How can you say there are none when the very link you provide mentions a release can be required for commercial use? You cannot imply that another person endorses your product or service without permission, and I've never seen an exclusion for babies. One may exist, but that FAQ doesn't say anything about it.
I know their strategy is "everything online", but if 20+ million people are using it (from the article) then that market doesn't look like such a waste of time, does it?
I suspect that unlike Firefox, which actually brings in money (mostly from search engine referrals, specifically from Google), Thunderbird doesn't bring in any significant money, if at all.
Mozilla is a non-profit (or is it a not-for-profit?), but I guess they're trying to make each project self-sustaining, and if thunderbird doesn't provide any bacon (pure speculation on my part here), then -- yes, that market might look like a waste of time.
For anyone working on software at the scale Mozilla is, this truth will be recognizable: focus can be a lot more important than financing.
Mozilla has and will continue to invest heavily in projects which have no or minimal revenue associated with them. Sustainability matters, of course, but there is no rule that every project or product must be individually sustainable.
Here in Chile, Nike put a QR code in an ad for a 10k run. It took you to a site with some information... unfortunately it was in flash so iPhones couldn't view it.
The power companies and grid are just like everybody else with a distributed system these days: they have a lot of monitoring data and the cheapest way to backhaul it is over the commodity internet. They find VPNs useful too.
True that a finely crafted USB stick can be used to bridge an air gap, but the power grid needs to not be connected to the interent. It's a protocol layering violation: the internet depends on the power grid. If the power grid also depends on the internet, what happens when one goes down for any length of time? How long would it take to get such a system turned back on again?
Going off on a tangent here, but from the distant memory of my film studies degree days one of the reasons you get so much fast cutting and hard-to-make-out action in modern fight scenes is because choreographing and shooting a fight scene properly is hard work, particularly if your actors aren't that experienced in stage combat. It's a big cheat, designed to make shooting fight scenes much easier (this is especially true if you're shooting a fight-scene where one participant is CG'd in).
Higher frame rates would help a lot with the blur. I think Peter Jackson made a mistake shooting The Hobbit at 48 FPS for the entire movie. He should have shot most of it at the traditional 24 FPS but used 48 or 72 for fast motion shots. Hopefully his blunder won't poison high FPS forever in the minds of filmgoers.
> Higher frame rates would help a lot with the blur. I think Peter Jackson made a mistake shooting The Hobbit at 48 FPS for the entire movie. He should have shot most of it at the traditional 24 FPS but used 48 or 72 for fast motion shots. Hopefully his blunder won't poison high FPS forever in the minds of filmgoers.
You can't shoot parts of a film at 24FPS, and parts at 48FPS - the 48FPS parts would be transformed down to 24FPS and would appear to be in "slow motion".
Jackson, for what it's worth, is sticking to his guns re: 48FPS and believes that part of the dislike is because it's "change".
You absolutely can shoot parts of a film in 24 FPS and parts at 48 FPS. Instead of transforming the 48 FPS parts to 24 FPS, you do the other way around and transform the 24 FPS parts to 48 FPS, not by doubling the speed but by repeating each frame twice. In fact, film projectors have always displayed movies at 48 FPS with frame doubling to reduce the appearance of flicker: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frame_rate#Background
My best guess would be people upgrading from a feature phone to a smartphone for the first time. They might buy a really low end Windows phone because of Nokia (they dominated the market for ages) but I have never seen a high end one here in the wild.