pcHDTV Card Available, Legal for Now

corby writes "pcHDTV has announced that their new HD-3000 Hi Definition Television Card will be shipping tomorrow, November 8th. The card is supported under Linux, and captures NTSC and ATSC video streams. It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005, under a recent FCC Order. If you are interested in being able to make your own decisions about what you can do with broadcast HDTV content, this is your last, best, chance."

Comments

Uh Oh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Once the feds find out I own this card and ripped the tag off my mattress I'll be off to the big house.

Re:Uh Oh ...

[Zarking_Fardwarks]

That mattress tag is talking to the retail stores, not the consumers.

Re:Uh Oh ...

[Average_Joe_Sixpack]

Yes, thank you Captain Obvious

Re:Uh Oh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

we already know you ripped off your mattress tag...

Re:Uh Oh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

That is, unless you forgot to put your tinfoil hat on this morning.

Re:Uh Oh ...

[syates21]

"But the big house isn't so bad.

You get to lift weights, take long showers, right up appeals, left weights... You get used to it."

If that's not where you were going, I apologize for the random Pee Wee's Big Adventure reference.

Why?

[boohiss]

Could someone explain what the broadcast flag is, and why it's going to be illegal to ignore it?

Re:Why?

[LighthouseJ]

http://slate.msn.com/id/2091723/

Re:Why?

[CountBrass]

In essence it's a DRM flag that says "don't allow this broadcast to be copied, recorded or anything else". So you can't record it to video tape or on your Tivo or any other device. Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.

This card ignores that flag...

(As an aside: for a long, long time I bemoaned the fact that we in the UK had no written constituiton and was jealous that the US did. And then you got Dubyah. Twice. And I rejoiced that we have an unelected head of state and no written constitution that politicians can ignore whenever they pack enough like minded jurists into the supreme court. But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...)

Re:Why?

[gfxguy]

Why do you blaim W. for this? I've pointed out time after time that Democrats are just as bad if not worse... DMCA was signed by Clinton, after all.

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.

I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts. Of course, if it does, the appropriate measure is to go to court and challenge it.

Re:Why?

[Talthane]

But then I remembered we've got Blair and no limitation on how often he can be re-elected...

No country has a limit, in the sense that you mean - even the US can change that if they want to, albeit via a protracted legal process. Until the 1940s, the US didn't even have such a limit, and then it was only because Roosevelt got elected once too often. Second point; why do you assume a written constitution is automatically better than an unwritten one? For example, you can change/adapt an unwritten constitution much, much faster than a written one. My point is, things are a lot less black and white than your statement assumes...

Re:Why?

[WoodstockJeff]

Didn't you get the memo? It's ALL Bush's fault! Even the fact that the leaves fell off the trees suddenly last month is due to Bush ignoring Kyoto!

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

I've pointed out time after time that Democrats are just as bad if not worse... DMCA was signed by Clinton, after all.

Grrr... that argument is really old. The Democrats differ from the Republicans on any number of issues -- education, foreign policy, preemptive war, abortion rights, prayer in schools, civil rights, tax policy, health care, social security reform, etc etc etc. I'm really tired of hearing about how evil both parties are when it's clear that there are major policy differences between the two parties for anybody that bothers to look past the propaganda of Ralph Nader.

That said the DCMA was written by lobbyists and passed through a lazy Congress that (by and large) didn't even bother to read the bill. I'm sure banning third-party garage-door openers and generic ink cartridges wasn't what anybody (even the Republicans) had in mind. Two other issues that will doubtless be brought up can similarly be explained -- the CDA was one of those "Look -- I'm protecting the children! Re-elect me!" issues that had a lot of public support and the Patriot Act was rammed through a stunned Congress after 9/11. Should the Democrats have had the balls to vote against it? Yes. Are they the same as Republicans? No.

To claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to do a huge disservice to both parties. I suspect that most Republicans would agree with me.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds simple enough

Seeing as to how it's against a supreme court ruling, why would the card be illegal ?

On the same line of thought, would a tiny little device nicknamed the "bit-toggler" that you pass the stream through before it reaches your tv/tivo/pc be illegal ?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Two parties can be different, yet just as "bad". Just bad in different ways.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

At least the US and UK are allies, right, right?

It's not funny, but laugh anyways. :(

Re:Why?

[gfxguy]

I did not say there was no difference, but in the matters of copyright and consumer rights, they are equally as bad.

Re:Why?

[hendridm]

From the article: "A digital TV broadcast can be easily grabbed and saved to disk as a perfect copy of the original, which alarms the studios that produce the shows."

Yum, can I record a butchered version of Top Gun laden with commercials and blank out curse words? At least it will be in perfect quality so I can feel the full effect of how Dawn takes grease out of my way.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even the fact that the leaves fell off the trees suddenly last month is due to Bush ignoring Kyoto!

Really? I thought he started to use breader reactors for white house x-mas lights and just dumped the waste in the swamp, and that's why the leaves fell off and formed that walking thing that wonders around.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Now that's funny, and pretty much captures my indifference to all the new technology out there.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

What are breader reactors? Are they like these things you toss chickens into and they come out the other end nice and breaded, ready to cook?
Or perhpaps, wait a minute, maybe you meant breeder reactor?

Re:Why?

[Sophrosyne]

Why would you want a written constitution? First you are in the common law system which probably gives more rights than any written constitution could. Secondly if you look at the Canadian constitution you can see there are problems with it- it creates constitutional citizens, and is used by business more than it is by people-- Written constitutions suck- especially in a common law system.

Re:Why?

[lobsterGun]

education, foreign policy, preemptive war, abortion rights, prayer in schools, civil rights, tax policy, health care, social security reform

It would help your position if you were to acually explain the differences.

Re:Why?

[c0p0n]

last time I checked, the FCC ruled on things like broadcasting through EM waves... so they also rule on the broadcast's content?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

The Broadcast flag does not prevent copying. TiVo, VHS, even (God forbid) Windows Media will be happy to record, copy, and whatever your content. The only catch is that it can't be "indiscriminately redistributed." Most Broadcast Flag compliant stuff just ties content to an account or through "proximity" to a local network. If people would quit over-reacting (I know, I know, this is Slashdot), everything would be much better.

Re:Why?

[gcaseye6677]

This is how any free movies will be shown, in order to give the consumer more incentive to subscribe to a premium channel or to order the movie through pay per view. It's all about squeezing the maximum amount of money out of people willing to pay for movies. That being said, this plan won't be very successful if movies don't get better. People probably won't be willing to pay for most of the crap out there once its shown in the theater and everyone realizes it sucks.

Re:Why?

[gcaseye6677]

Sure, there will be some minor differences, but both parties take contributions from the same special interest groups, so they are both bought and paid for by the same people. This ensures that they will vote alike on all issues that are important to lobbyists (ie. DMCA).

Re:Why?

[HermanAB]

Heh, the parties may differ, but this time around the candidates were both war mongering imperialists and even the nice American people could hardly tell a difference between them so they got almost the same vote. 'Nuff sed.

Re:Why?

[michaelkpate]

The Democrats have the best legislator on the issue, Rick Boucher. But they also have the worst, Howard Berman. There are good Republicans like Lamar Smith and bad ones like Orrin Hatch. Neither party has a stellar record on the issue.

Re:Why?

[sqlrob]

why do you assume a written constitution is automatically better than an unwritten one? For example, you can change/adapt an unwritten constitution much, much faster than a written one

That's the weakness in an unwritten one, not its strength. If it changes however the wind blows, what good is it?

Re:Why?

[justins]

Two other issues that will doubtless be brought up can similarly be explained -- the CDA [epic.org] was one of those "Look -- I'm protecting the children! Re-elect me!" issues that had a lot of public support and the Patriot Act was rammed through a stunned Congress after 9/11. Should the Democrats have had the balls to vote against it? Yes. Are they the same as Republicans? No.

Russ Feingold voted against it. Just thought I should mention that. He caught a lot of flack, too...

Re:Why?

[geoffspear]

Except the ruling explicitly orders that current equipment must still be able to record the broadcasts, which means you have no idea what you're talking about. It's supposed to prevent redistribution, not recording for the personal use of the person doing the recording.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Moderators: He is making too much sense. That is not allowed on /.

Re:Why?

[krymsin01]

Perhaps he's refering to the Beta case.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

I'm not aware of any ruling that it contradicts

Sony v. Universal, more commonly known as the Betamax decision. The key points of the Betamax decision are:

1. [The] noncommercial home use recording of material broadcast over the public airwaves [is] fair use of copyrighted works and [does] not constitute copyright infringement
2. [The law] does not support [...] theory that supplying the "means" to accomplish an infringing activity and encouraging that activity through advertisement are sufficient to establish liability for copyright infringement
3. The sale of copying equipment, like the sale of other articles of commerce, does not constitute contributory infringement if the product is widely used for legitimate, unobjectionable purposes, or, indeed, is merely capable of substantial noninfringing uses.
4. [U]nauthorized home time-shifting of [television] programs is legitimate fair use

The last point is the key one here: EVEN IF the copyright holder does not authorize you to make a copy for your personal use, you are STILL legally entitled to do so.

Copyright is NOT an absolute monopoly on the duplication of a published work -- no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

You want a written Constitution?

Here, take ours. We don't seem to be using it anymore.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or the slim minority who voted for the other assclown.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Is there a list of who voted for and against it somewhere? I've heard that it was a voice vote so there's no official record, but someone must have compiled a list of who admitted to voting for or against it, and who refuse to comment.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because we have to get that amendment in to keep all them gays from getting married. If gays could get married, the whole country would go to hell.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

Yes, there is difference between the two parties. That does not make either one of them right, nor does it make either one of them less evil.

The Republican party consistantly panders to far-right Theocratic causes and attempts to ram the tenents of a particular religion down everyone's throat in violation of the First Amendment. They also consistantly support legislation which erodes the protections granted under the Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendments. The only part of the Constitution which the Republicans consistantly defend is the Second Amendment.

The Democratic party, on the other hand, typically attacks an entirely different set of freedoms. In particular, they consistantly give their support to legislation which erodes the protections of the Second amendment.

Both parties also routinely ignore the Ninth and Tenth amendments and assume powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

Chosing between the Democrats and the Republicans is chosing which part of the Constitution you want to gut.

Re:Why?

[nsayer]

Not quite. You are allowed to record a show with the broadcast flag turned on. However, any device after the tuner must support either transporting or recording the digital stream in a secure (encrypted) way so that you, the owner of the equipment, cannot get to see the raw digital bits (because you are presumed to be naughty and would put them up on Kaaza). You can record the bits, but the recorded has to keep them encrypted and must have serial copy management. If any device in the chain does not support the HDMI-CP stuff, then the signal has to be either blocked, or downconverted to 480i.

There was once somewhere an FCC FAQ about the broadcast flag. It specifically says that, yes, you can have a TiVo, so long as it denies you high-quality digital access to unencrypted bits.

It's still a raw deal. There's no reason to make it sound worse than it really is.

Re:Why?

[recharged95]

"Legal for Now"

I love this. I just watched Pixar's The Incredibles (i.e. the superheroes were forced by lawyers & government). Everything has a legal spin to it nowadays. Makes the current administration's so called "tort reform" so yesterday. As one corporate lawyer told me when I asked him who would win my specific Chap 11 case against an old company, he said,

"Lawyers always win".

The urban legend called the culture wars is over (a stalemate), welcome to the psychological wars fellas.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

Sure, there will be some minor differences

I didn't know preemptive war, foreign policy, tax policy, environmental policy, education and a woman's right to choose were "minor issues". Silly me basing my vote on these minor issues when there are clearly more important things to worry about.

This ensures that they will vote alike on all issues that are important to lobbyists (ie. DMCA).

The difference being that Kerry said he would examine the DMCA and see if it needed to be changed. Write that off to campaign rhetoric if you will -- it's more then Dubya was willing to do.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

The Democratic party, on the other hand, typically attacks an entirely different set of freedoms. In particular, they consistantly give their support to legislation which erodes the protections of the Second amendment.

Who is "they"? Most of the Democratic establishment is sick of fighting (and losing) campaigns on guns and would be only too happy to return the issue to the states. What works for New York and California is probably not right for Wyoming, Alaska or South Dakota.

Both parties also routinely ignore the Ninth and Tenth amendments and assume powers not explicitly granted to the Federal government.

And henceforth is one of the reasons the Republicans disgust me with their hypocrisy. It's all well and fine to preach about states rights... until you control the Federal Government. I seem to recall John Ashcroft trying to tell my states Attorney General that he had to pursue the death penalty in a state murder trial. Elliot Spitzer being who he is promptly told him to mind his own business.

The loss of states rights can be blamed on many factors. For starters whoever thought it was a good idea for the general population to elect their own Senators. That was probably the worst amendment to the constitution ever. It's done more damage then the second-worst: probation. I'm probably the only Democrat you'll ever hear say that --but there it is.

Re:Why?

[mark-t]

Something I'm not seeing here is what is to stop _software_ (which does the recording, if the HDTV hardware is part of PC card), from ignoring this flag?

We all remember what happened with DeCSS, after all...

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

First, you misread the case. There has never been a case that established that an entire species of use, such as time shifting, was inevitably fair use. Rather, each individual use claimed to be a fair use must be judged on its own circumstances. Time shifting by one person might be a fair use, but that doesn't mean that time shifting by another person is. Sony merely recognized that a substantial amount of the time shifting going on, or that _might_ go on, was fair.

Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.

Plus of course, it remains to be seen whether the broadcast flag falls under the copyright power at all, and is therefore subject to a fair use argument.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I cry foul too. Moderates aren't allow on Slashdot. Go preach to the masses elsewhere, you non-polarized non-extremeist non-bigot!

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

Most of the Democratic establishment is sick of fighting (and losing) campaigns on guns and would be only too happy to return the issue to the states

If you can't abolish the Second Amendment at the Federal level, do it on a state-by-state basis. Face it, the Democratic party (at both the fedral and state level) is opposed to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms. The strategy they use to carry out their unconstitutional goals is irrelevant, the salient point is that they are pandering to the illogical rantings of a vocal minority pressure group in order to get more votes.

The republicans pander to the fundimentalist whackjobs because it's a good way for them to get re-elected. The democrats pander to the gun-grabbing wackjobs because it's a good way for THEM to get re-elected. Different symptoms, same disease.

Re:Why?

[Jardine]

no matter how they whine, the copyright cartels cannot deny you your LEGAL fair use rights.

Apparently they can.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

If you can't abolish the Second Amendment at the Federal level, do it on a state-by-state basis. Face it, the Democratic party (at both the fedral and state level) is opposed to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

Like the Republican Party with gay marriage or abortion rights? And what exactly is wrong with the states having the right to regulate it? I don't see any clause in the 2nd amendment that says you have the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

In here in the great white north, we have a written constitution, but otherwise a very similar parliamentary system.

However,we have a minority government in the lower house, so another election next year, once one side decides that they've come ahead in the polls.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy."

But this isn't about the copyright holders making it difficult, it's about the FCC making it illegal to make fair use of a copyrighted work by making it illegal to make hardware which ignores a certain peice of data that says "don't copy me".

If back when VCR's came out the FCC created a "broadcast flag" and made it illegal to ignore it, then the movie industry would not be where it is today. We wouldn't even have DVD's. You'd have to wait till the movie you wanted to see came on cable, or you'd have to pay your cable company $5 every time you wanted to watch a movie.

Re:Why?

[rpdillon]

Your ideas are good, if a bit malformed.

Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.

People are not entitled to fair use - you are correct. However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law. In other words, a specific provision under which the resitrction does not apply. If you were looking for something that is "merely" a defense, you should look at patent law's "prior art" or something more along those lines. But "fair use" and "prior art" are different in their natures.

Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.

You bring up one very good point thought that I rarely see here: even though its entirely LEGAL for you to make copies as a paying user of [digital cable, satellite TV, satellite radio, whatever], there is no law saying that the broadcasters cannot make it difficult or [relatively] impossible for you to do so. I think this is a legal loophole for providers that needs to be closed to protect consumer's rights. (As you pointed out, fair use is not a right, but I think it should be.) As it stands now, we are in a situation where we are legally allowed to copy something, but the providers are also legally allowed to take every measure to stop us from doing so, including outlawing devices that would permit such an action. Circumvention of those restriction on the device would then fall under a legal exclusion, but you have to ask yourself at some point if we're being honest with ourselves...you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision. This is a sort of legislative dishonestly - you're saying one thing while allowing something completely different to actually occur. We need to decide what we really want and then put laws into place that [protect/prohibit] those actions.

If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge "schooling" people in copyright law, its true purpose, and how it needs to be revamped when new technologies emerge. We're approaching that time, and I'm not so sure I'm going to like the outcome.

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

You bet. But I assure you, they aren't concerned with that. The movie studios are conservative. They would've liked to ban TV when it first appeared. But this isn't really relevant.

The problem is:

1) What powers of Congress does the FCC have power under?

2) Do any of those powers permit the broadcast flag?

We don't yet even know if we're looking at a copyright issue here. And even if we get that far, it isn't known whether fair use is a constitutional requirement or if Congress can ignore it at will.

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

Sony vs. Universal did exactly what you describe: they ruled that recording programs for the purpose of timeshifting was fair-use. Call this an "entire species" if you like, but that's what the decision said.

I disagree. From the opinion:

Thus, although every commercial use of copyrighted material is presumptively an unfair exploitation of the monopoly privilege that belongs to the owner of the copyright, noncommercial uses are a different matter. A challenge to a noncommercial use of a copyrighted work requires proof either that the particular use is harmful, or that if it should become widespread, it would adversely affect the potential market for the copyrighted work. Actual present harm need not be shown; such a requirement would leave the copyright holder with no defense against predictable damage. Nor is it necessary to show with certainty that future harm will result. What is necessary is a showing by a preponderance of the evidence that some meaningful likelihood of future harm exists. If the intended use is for commercial gain, that likelihood may be presumed. But if it is for a noncommercial purpose, the likelihood must be demonstrated.

In this case, respondents failed to carry their burden with regard to home time-shifting.

(emphasis mine). The Court did not say that in every case, home time shifting was a fair use. Only that it was insofar as it was looked at in the Sony case. Now, I grant that plaintiffs are going to have a godawful hard time, but the possibility is still open.

This is entirely within the framework of fair use, which is a rule of equity that hinges entirely on an examination of the facts of each case to such a degree that it's virtually impossible to establish a thorough test.

However, that in no way means that fair use is "merely" a defense: it is not. It is a gap in the applicability of copyright (and DMCA) law.

Meh. Fair use is unlike the other exemptions in that in practice it isn't like rebutting the prima face case. But yes, it is in the 107-122 range.

Re: prior art, well, fair use doesn't invalidate a copyright. It's not only highly personal, but it's circumstance limited. Again, it seems most similar to self defense in a criminal case.

As for the DMCA, however, there is disagreement. 1201 et al deal with causes of action for circumvention and such, not infringement, and fair use is traditionally only relevant for infringement. And the DMCA says that it doesn't enlarge fair use, so if circumvention is outside the scope of infringement, then fair use doesn't apply.

In order for fair use to apply to the DMCA, those sections will need to be under the copyright power, and fair use will need to be a constitutionally required doctrine applying to anything under the copyright power. Both issues remain to be seen.

Lastly, the broadcast flag will not fall under anything *but* copyright law, or an extension thereof, like the DMCA.

The only cases I've heard that seem useful for that are Martignon, the similar bootlegging case out on the west coast, IIRC, the Trade-Mark cases, etc.

Still not a very solid claim. Though I do agree, personally (and that fair use applies constitutionally to all copyright power exercises). But the courts don't often listen to me.

If you read the Sony vs. Universal decision, there is a lot of commentary by the judge

Justice, not judge, unless you're talking about the district or circuit opinions, which are rarely read.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

And what exactly is wrong with the states having the right to regulate it

The 14th amendment, section one:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws

I don't see any clause in the 2nd amendment that says you have the right to carry a concealed weapon

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Carrying a weapon on one's person, concealed or otherwise, constitutes bearing arms. This is a Constitutionally-protected LIBERTY of which no state can deprive any citizen without due process of law.

Re:Why?

[4of12]

Outrageous really as it goes against an explicit Supreme Court Ruling.

Minor point.

Since the U.S. Founding Fathers did not explicitly guarantee electronic copy protection in the Constitution, the strict constructionist majority bench to be appointed soon will overturn those old SCOTUS rulings by Liberal Activist Judges®.

Re:Why?

[koreth]

This is how any free movies will be shown, in order to give the consumer more incentive to subscribe to a premium channel or to order the movie through pay per view.

Remind me again why it's in a broadcast network's interest to encourage its viewers to subscribe to HBO and Showtime?

People probably won't be willing to pay for most of the crap out there once its shown in the theater and everyone realizes it sucks.

Yeah, 'cause look at what a horrible failure movies on videotape and DVD have been. Nobody is willing to pay for that crap.

Re:Why?

[danila]

I can take your misguided tolerance even further, by noting that Orrin Hatch is an avid supporter of stem-cell research. See, no black and white?... A less intelligent person would then argue that people should be tolerant, that each position should be respected, that one should not pretend he knows the truth, etc. But being a smart guy I am, I can see the big picture. And the big picture is that 95% of the people are morons and make their decisions semi-randomly. Thus every politician in power poses the danger of doing harm to the society, unless he is a) very intelligent b) very educated c) rational d) sceptical e) atheist f) generally a nice chap. I seriously doubt there are more than a few percent of legislators in Congress that qualify.

Re:Why?

[Bitchslap_69]

Go back and read the Slate article. The broadcast flag specifically doesn't break Tivos: http://slate.msn.com/id/2091723.

Re:Why?

[Shakrai]

Carrying a weapon on one's person, concealed or otherwise, constitutes bearing arms. This is a Constitutionally-protected LIBERTY of which no state can deprive any citizen without due process of law.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Try to quote the entire amendment in your argument and not just the part that you like. Of course nobody can agree on what "well regulated Militia" means.... but that's another story.

Your whole picking apart my post when I mostly agreed with you on your one wedge issue shows what's wrong with this country. I made several points that I would figure people right-of-center could agree with (the Senate) and you choose to focus on one thing that I said.

For the record I'm not trying to take away your guns and I won't vote for anybody that advocates that. But "well regulated Militia" doesn't translate into owning armor-piercing bullets and RPGs. "keep and bear Arms" doesn't imply that you have the right to carry a concealed weapon down Times Square at rush-hour. It certainly doesn't imply that you have the right to buy a gun at a gunshow with no sort of criminal background check (since as you pointed out the states can take away this right with due process of law -- i.e: if you are convicted of a crime) whatsoever.

Do we have too many laws on the books about firearms? Certainly. Do we need to enforce the existing ones better? Absolutely. But why can't the NRA meet us half-way on some of these issues?

Re:Why?

[gcaseye6677]

The movie's PRODUCER, the one who dictates how it will be shown, has plenty of incentive to drive people to premium channels. They will certainly make more money this way. The pay per view model is considered ideal for them, but that will only work for better movies. You might pay $6 to buy "Night at the Roxbury" from the WalMart DVD Bin of Shame, but you won't pay $3.95 a couple of times to watch it on pay per view, even though you might do this for a better quality movie. Basic consumer psychology.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

Second, I don't recall any case that claims that people are entitled to fair uses. Only that it isn't infringement to make a fair use. Copyright holders are under no obligation to make it easy. This is because fair use is not a right. It is merely a defense to infringement actions.

I think you've got it a bit backwards here: Fair Use is a right. The Public Domain is a right. It is copyright itself that is a privilage! It always has been, and the only reason people don't seem to realize it now is that the media controls what we think. The only purpose of copyright is as a carrot on a stick; a means to acquiring a rich Public Domain.

Please stop defending the copyright holders -- they're just looking at a gift horse in the mouth, and I hope it kicks them!

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would add that the DMCA (Damned Monopoly-loving Copyright Atrocity) was signed by a Democrat (Bill Clinton).

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

Of course nobody can agree on what "well regulated Militia" means.... but that's another story

The only people who disagree about what the militia is, or what it means to be "well regulated", are revisionists who willfully ignore Federalist #29 and Title 10 of the US Code.

What is the militia? As defined by Title 10 of the US Code:

The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

The classes of the militia are-- (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

So what did the Founding Fathers have in mind by the phrase "well-regulate"? Federalist #29 has the answer:

``The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.

To put it simply, "well-regulated" is another way of saying "properly trained and disciplined". To infer that "well-regulated" means "buried under a mass of beaurocratic regulations and restrictions" is pure revisionism.

"keep and bear Arms" doesn't imply that you have the right to carry a concealed weapon down Times Square at rush-hour

Yes, it does. Last time I checked, the Constitution applies equally to all citizens, regardless of whether they live in New York City or in rural Nebraska. A citizen has just as much right to exercise his 2nd amendment rights at 5pm in NY,NY as he does at midnight in Lincoln, NE, Refer again to the 14th Amendment. Using that weapon in an unsafe or irresponsible fashion, or recklessly endangering the lives of innocent bystanders, is entirely different matter.

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

Fair Use is a right.

Then please cite one statute or case stating that in such a manner that it is helpful to you. Because remember, your point appears to be that neither government nor private entities can interfere with fair use or throw impediments in the way of such uses.

I'd love to see someone authoritative saying that. I don't care about people on /. saying that, since lots of people here say lots of stupid crap with no grounding in reality.

It is copyright itself that is a privilage!

I am perfectly aware that copyright is a positive right, and I often point this out to others. But that has nothing to do with this discussion.

Please stop defending the copyright holders

I'm not. But I do try to make sure that when people make a mistake as to what the law is NOW, that it is cleared up. Confusion about the current state of the law won't help anyone.

Re:Why?

[Big Boss]

Like the Republican Party with gay marriage or abortion rights? And what exactly is wrong with the states having the right to regulate it? I don't see any clause in the 2nd amendment that says you have the right to carry a concealed weapon.

Exactly. The Republicans are every bit as bad, and as someone else pointed out, it just depends on which parts of the Constitution you wish to ignore.

As for your point on concealed weapons.. The Constitution does not stipulate HOW you may "keep and bear arms". It also specificly states that the government is not to infringe that right. Is it OK for a state government to do things that the federal Constitution prohibits? Maybe, but I would think long and hard about that, with ANY of the clauses, not just the 2nd amendment. After all, if one of them is fair game, what's to stop them when one you like gets gutted?

As you seem to not like concealed carry, would be you happier with open carry? There are good reasons for concealed carry. Many people have an irrational fear of guns. Concealed carry allows those of us who wish to protect ourselves the ability to do so without causing a panic in the general population. I see this as a good thing.

To be fair, I'll state my bias. I hold a concealed carry permit. I also live in a state that alows open carry, though it's frowned upon for the panic reason above. That means that I can, legally, strap on an old-west style gun belt and walk the streets downtown. Which would you preffer?

Re:Why?

[Mad Marlin]

A, C, and F generally rule out the possibility of E.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

Okay, fine -- s/is/should be/g. Of course, I believe in Amendments 9 and 10 (unlike the government including the Supreme Court), and I interpret the Constitution according to the intent of the Framers, in addition to what they actually wrote into it.

Re:Why?

[Fnkmaster]

Intelligent, well-educated, decent people can't be atheists? Wow, I'll have to tell the several Nobel prize winners I've met who were avowed atheists that they must be assholes, because some guy on Slashdot said these virtues are incompatible.

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

So how would that work?

Remember, any use is potentially a fair use.

For example, suppose I want to quote from a book in order to write a review. And that this is, for purposes of discussion, indisputably a fair use. Can I demand that the copyright holder provide me with access to the book so that I can select passages to quote, without having to pay for that access? Aren't you saying then that if I can put together such a thing, that I have an enforcable right to get the book for free from someone who doesn't want to lend it, if only temporarily?

I think that a lot of the 'fair use should be a right' crowd haven't thought about it fully enough. Some limits to copyright, and some limited causes of action against copyright holders might be viable, but that's still a long way from fair use as a right.

Re:Why?

[Fnkmaster]

As a current resident of New York City who does support the right of citizens to keep and bear arms, I just want to say that I disagree with your contention. Waving a gun around at 5pm in NY, NY *IS* using that gun in an unsafe and irresponsible fashion. Baring it in an open carry fashion *IS* recklessly endangering the lives of innocent bystanders, given our population density here.

Guns in densely populated cities seem to end up getting used for street crime, especially handguns. I do own a rifle, but it's not here in New York, it's in another state, and I don't feel that I want or need it here. Furthermore, municipalities regulating guns in towns, cities and urban areas goes back at least 150 years that I know of in the US, probably much farther. It's simply unreasonable and unsafe to have gun racks on cars in the streets or people carrying handguns (concealed or open) and getting in packed subway cars where they can be grabbed away, etc. I simply cannot imagine the Founding Fathers had that kind of chaos in an urban environment in mind when they thought about the need of the populace as a whole to be able to resist invading forces and oppressive governments as a well-regulated militia.

And if the Founding Fathers really thought that, then you force me and many other moderate Democrats who support reasonable gun rights into the position of saying that I disagree with the Fouding Fathers and think they were a bunch of idiots. And that the Second Amendment should be repealed entirely. Since you don't want to do that, I suggest you rethink your position and consider why on earth bearing arms in Times Square would be beneficial to the keeping of a well-regulated militia.

Since your web site seems to indicate that you live in Maryland, I have to ask you if you think it would be a good idea to encourage the residents of Baltimore to all carry around handguns on their persons. Do you think you'd be more safe walking around Baltimore that way? Do you think those people constitute a well-regulated militia, or are they street thugs who wouldn't hesitate to use those weapons to shoot you and take your wallet?

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ever hear of Howard Stern?
Ever see Janet Jackson's nipple?

The FCC hands out fines based on content all the time.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

Actually, yes -- I was just thinking the other day that it should be a requirement in order to receive the protections of copyright that the creator provide the Library of Congress one complete, fully-reproducable source copy, preferably in a digital format. In addition to facilitating the situation you described, this has another even more important advantage:

Have you ever heard of "abandonware"? It's a computer program that is no longer available in any form from it's publisher, who may even no longer exist. Moreover, any copies that you can find are in compiled form. Why is this a problem? Because in 100 years or so when the copyright finally expires, you'll have a program written for a CPU architecture/OS/framework/whatever that's been so long forgotten that in order to use the program you'll have to figure out what it does from the opcodes up.

The reason I said "source copy" is that once the code is public domain it should be reproducable and modifiable (check the copyright clause in the Constitution about this -- it's the "derivative works" part). A binary, for all practical purposes, isn't modifiable. Also, I'm not just talking about software. I mean TeX, PostScript, SVG (not Illustrator format, since it's proprietary and undocumented), etc. too.

Now, I don't propose that the Library of Congress give out the source code of a closed-source program, but they ought to at least have it, to save it for the future.

Anecdote: There's an old game I really like called Tyrian. When it came out, 486s were cutting-edge and DOS was the norm for games. Now, I have a Mac, and there is no possible way for me to play the game -- if I had the source, I would port it myself, but I can't even ask for the source, because AFAIK there's no one left to ask. I could run it emulated (except that I can't because my Mac is too slow -- it's an iBook), but why should I? The people who made it obviously don't care about it anymore, so what's the harm in giving away the source? They could do that and keep copyright on the artwork, like iD did with Doom.

Re:Why?

[DarkSarin]

Interesting Take, and I almost modded you down, but that would be abuse.

I see absolutely NO reason for you to include e) atheist in your list. It is ABSOLUTELY possible to make rational decisions without being atheist. In fact, atheism is just as irrational as theism, deism, polytheism, paganism and everything else, with the possible exception of agnosticism (which may be the "most" rational, since it simply states that we cannot know the existance of God), but that's another story.

Explain to me why atheists have a lesser chance of harming the country/society than those who believe in a deity of some sort, and I *might* give credence to your other statements, but as it is, I suspect that you are simply talking without thinking.

BTW, if you want me to take you seriously, you need to provide logical (note I did not say rational--that's something else) reasoning as to why, not emotional ranting.

*rational, as typically used in the judgement and decision making literature, denotes a maximization of utility of outcomes. That is, making a decision that selects the most desirable outcome and seeks that outcome. There is no end of debate about whether or not humans have the capacity to be rational. I know because I am researching in that area currently.

Re:Why?

[cpt kangarooski]

Actually, yes -- I was just thinking the other day that it should be a requirement in order to receive the protections of copyright that the creator provide the Library of Congress one complete, fully-reproducable source copy, preferably in a digital format. In addition to facilitating the situation you described, this has another even more important advantage:

I've actually been proposing this for a few years.

Really that's just a facet of something broader: That deposit should be manditory and should include such materials as are necessary, are required by the Copyright Office, Library of Congress, or are commonly preferred in order to materially make use of, reproduce, distribute, prepare derivatives, etc. Thus for software, not only would this likely include source, but that it would have to be well commented, and describe the methods of compilation, the platform it runs on, etc.

But if something else appears where there are similar needs, simple administrative procedures can quickly and effectively adapt.

There are some other ideas I've had as well that tie into this a bit.

But this still doesn't ensure access. Oh, I suppose you could go to the Library of Congress (these materials should be open -- if copyright is exclusive of trade secrets on the same materials, then so be it) but that's different than an enforcible right of fair use.

check the copyright clause in the Constitution about this -- it's the "derivative works" part

Oh, please, please quote this exactly. I'd like to see it.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

A broadcast flag is a flag embedded in a signal stream that allows a broadcaster to deny you the ability to record that program. Digital TV worries a lot of people over piracy issues.
And many broadcasters want to be able to deny people abilirty to record things like premium sports evernts and simlar.
July 2005 it will be illegal to sell any recorder type equipment that does not have the ability to read the flag and prevent recording. The problem is, many broadcasters may run hog wild and slap the flag in a lot of stuff making time-shifing impossible and making life generally harder than necessary.
So if you want to be able to have a Linux compatible HDTV card that can be used to make your own PVR set up that can handle HDTV, this is it. This is the last generation such card that can't see the no record flag. Grab it while you can.

Re:Why?

[Anonymous Coward]

I see a big difference in what the two parties say, relatively small differences in what they both actually end up doing.

They both spend more, just in different places, they both suck up to lobbiests, just different ones, they both care little about their actual constituency, and finally, they both don't take you nor I seriously.

Re:Why?

[danila]

Thanks for the restraint not modding me down and for the reply. It is absolutely possible for not atheists to make good decisions. But I would claim that the less religious a person is, the more likely he is to make good decisions, all other things equal.

Atheism is not irrational. By definition, atheism is lack of belief in god. Not having a belief is not irrational. Not acquiring a belief in something that may be irrational if there is evidence for that something. However, there is no serious evidence for the existence of any god or gods. "Holy books" that we have are not evidence, because it is well understood how mythological and religious beliefs emerged. The "beauty of the world" and other crap is also not evidence, just demagogy. Scientists, i.e. those who know the most about the world, are predominantly atheists (depends on the country and the field of science, of course).

Of course, I understand the opposite worldview - "We don't care about science, we believe because it feels right, there is a god and that's it", which is expressed by religious people (though sometimes in more refined wording, especially when it comes from religious "scholars"). I also understand I can't persuade these people who surrender their intelligence in favour of built-in axioms of questionable validity. But I think I am justified in simply thinking that their opinions and beliefs are crap, and they are morons (insert a necessary disclaimer here about how they still can be good fathers, great poets, even decent politicians sometimes, heck, even scientists from time to time, etc.).

* By rational I meant more that they should be rationalists, not that they should practice rational decision making in the economic sense (though to some extent that obviously follows).

P.S. This is an entirely different topic, but USA is simply a backward country in this regard. Not as backward as Iran or Brasil, but it is still not a secular state today, despite the Founding Fathers being mostly atheists, theists, agnostics and other decent rationalist folk. It's simple conditioning - from the childhood people are gently pushed to be believers (christians, jewish, muslims, doesn't matter). Heck, even some New Age Wicca crap is considered more "normal", more tolerable than atheism. This is just plain retarded, but there is little that can be done to radically change the situation today. And this is not flaimbait, just an candid comment based on very obvious observations.

Re:Why?

[justins]

Is there a list of who voted for and against it somewhere?

Russ Feingold is the only US senator who voted against the Patriot act. Voice vote or no, and I don't know anything about that, everyone who voted was very conspicuous about it before and after the vote, since it was so highly political.

There might have been a few people who voted against it in the house, I don't recall who they were.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

Oops -- that's not the Constitution, it's something else I read. At least, I thought it was, but I can't find what I'm looking for on copyright.gov either.

It could be that I just figured that since copyright specifically prohibits derivative works, they must be allowed otherwise, and that the ability to make such derivative works be preserved.

In any case, I was mistaken and/or confused; sorry about that. Please disregard.

Re:Why?

[Zangief]

Eeeh, they already do. The fact that there exists rampant movie piracy, does not mean that people doesn't buy DVDs, or buy PPV shows.

Re:Why?

[Artifakt]

No, it's not Flamebait. Carried as far as you have, it's hate speech. It's also proof that you personally should never have political power, as your overwhelming contempt for the vast majority of those people you would be 'serving' shows through in every line.
You do not understand my worldview. you understand a straw-man parody of my world view, and that is all you are interested in understanding. As someone who knows at least a few of the intelligent arguements for Atheism, and a former Agnostic, you are a fanatic who gives your own cause a bad name and is too foolish to know the damage you do. Not only do I have more respect for the cause you claim to ally yourself with than you have for me or my opinions, but I have more respect for it than you yourself do, and that's really sad.

Re:Why?

[Bri3D]

Completely OT, but you should be able to emulate 486-level speeds with a gen2 iBook(white G3) or better. Even a 500Mhz PowerPC gets about 486-level performance in Bochs. And if 486es were cutting-edge, you shouldn't even need that much.

Re:Why?

[Mad Marlin]

No. Being intelligent, rational, and "generally a nice chap" rule out being an atheist. Intelligence and rationality do not, upon observing the universe, conclude that it just "gee-wiz kinda happened by itself". This is seperate from any specific religious system however: rather just the realization that there is something beyond that created all of this.

There are many very well-educated athiests. There also many very well-educated Christians, and many well-educated Jews, and many well-educated Muslims, and many well-educated Hindus, and many well-educated people who ascribe to every other major religion.

And the next time that you are talking with all of your many Nobel-prize-winning friends, of which I am sure you have plenty, remember that even Yassir Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize, so it isn't exactly the most accurately-awarded medal, and being an asshole does not preclude a person from the possibility of recieving one either.

Re:Why?

[mrchaotica]

Well, the game has several graphics settings: low, medium, high, and Pentium. I've tried it with Bochs on my 800Mhz G4 iBook, and the graphics are choppy, even on "low." I don't really understand it; I think maybe the developers used weird programming tricks or something and it slows down Bochs.

In case you were wondering, it's a vertical-scrolling space shooter. Like Chromium, but sprite-based (not 3D)*, and more fun to play.

Re:Why?

[zsau]

The Australian one's probably better; it already grants the Queen unlimited power should she choose to accept it. Gets rid of all the nastinesses when the pollies have to work out how to get around it.

Re:Why?

[DarkSarin]

A few comments:
First, I did not say that atheism was irrational. I said it was just as irrational as other forms of belief. Atheism is a form of faith--faith or belief that there is no god. Not that there is no evidence of god (which is more strictly speaking agnosticism), but that there is not, and cannot, be a god. This is an illogical or unreasonable stance in that it makes an assumption, and then attempts to form the world to fit the assumption. The assumption is simple: there is no god, God, gods, Gods, deity, Deity, or Deities. The attempts to explain any potential evidence of the divine is an non-reason based philosophy.

Agnosticism is much more logical, in some variants, that the divine is unknown, and we cannot prove either way. It is unwilling to discount the divine, but unwilling to accept, sans physical evidence, that there is a divine. The agnostic exists at 1.5 in a binary world (it is an analogy, so bear with it).

*In my description of atheism and agnosticism, I forgot to mention that there is, according to wikipedia, a division amongst atheists--those who are *weak* atheists who claim that there is insufficient evidence and those who are *strong* atheists, which is what I describe. Weak atheism is probably more reasonable (logical) than either strong atheism, which asserts clearly that there is no god, or agnosticism, which asserts that god is unknowable and unknown. Your should read the descriptions of both atheists and agnostics on wikipedia-both are enlightening, and may help clear up some confusion. Based on your statements, I would guess that you are more of a weak atheist than a strong atheist, but I hesitate to label anyone with something that they do not claim willingly.

Your contention that most scientists are atheists lacks power. There are a good many scientists who are deeply devoted to their religion, and many very religious people who are excellent scientists. Furthermore, many of the famous scientists that came up with ideas that you rely on for modern conveniences where religious. Some men of science have openly clashed with the religious elite (the Catholic Church was particularly harsh, based in part on non-biblical interpretations of the universe--had they stuck strictly to the canonical writings, they would have been better off in this regard, as the Bible says nothing on the ordering of the universe).

I specifically asked for a reasoned argument about why atheists would be better politicians--justification for your inclusion of that criteria. Point me to some research, some logical arguments. Your personal observations are merely anecdotal evidence (n=1), and statistically invalid for that reason, unless you have systematically collected data and can point to a data set, and a history of its collection.

Your claim that the less religious a person is the more likely that they are to make "good" decisions. There are a number of flaws in this, the first being lack of evidence (and I don't think you will find it).

Second, you fail to define what constitutes a "good" decision. It is perfectly plausible (although somewhat misleading) for a religious person to define "good" decisions as those that promote God (though doing so is not something I would recommend). I think that a better way to word your argument would be:
But I would claim that the less religious a person is, the more likely he is to make rational decisions, all other things equal.

This has a very clear meaning to those who study decision making (either economic or personal). There are still some problems, but they lie in defining what type of decisions. Do you mean personal decisions? Or perhaps near-instant decisions? You probably mean leadership/management decisions (which is essentially what politicians are engaged in), but I hate to put words in your mouth.

Third, it is essentially an arm-chair type of philosophy. If you are serious about good science, then you need to prove your stance, not

Re:Why?

[haruchai]

If you live in North America, you must have been in seclusion to not know what the issues are/were and where the candidates stood.
In any case, you can easily google for the relevant info.

Re:Why?

[jrexilius]

Depending on the population density, the external holster. It would do a better job of serving its purpose if it was in plain sight.

Of course as the number of people per square mile goes up, things get quite a bit more complicated.

Re:Why?

[lobsterGun]

Easy now...

I only stated that it would help the position of the original poster if they were to explain what they saw the differences to be.

It is a common tactic on most message boards to rattle off a long list of terms and then infer that the reader would have to be daft to not understand and agree with the poster. There is actually an official sounding term for this falacy. If you're interested, you can always google for it.

Re:Why?

[danila]

Bullshit. I've been talking about these issues with really smart guys, renowned Islamic scholars and the like. It's not a strawman parody, this is just a very simplified version of what they really believe. Yeah, it's worded to show my lack of respect, but it does not differ from what they proclaim in any significant way. You may have a super-dooper worldview, which is much more complex, but forgive me for not knowing it, since I never had a chance to discuss it with you - must religious people, however, use the very same line of reasoning that I outlined (if at all).

As for hate speech bit, this is fucking bullshit. I know hate speech when I say it, and that wasn't it. Hate speech is when I argue that all clerics should be shot, mutilated and tortured. That's hate speech for you.

Lenin was right when he argued that the only valid form of atheism was militant atheism. Tolerance is not an option. If you don't believe me or Lenin, believe Voltaire or many other great people who understood it perfectly well centuries ago... Religious belief is a form of mental retardation, which must be eradicated from the face of Earth for the sake of the humankind.

Re:Why?

[danila]

Look, you can call white "black" all day, but that won't add a single spot. Atheism is not faith in non-existence of god, this is an explicit lack of religious belief. Let's be nice and not ascribe new meanings to this word. Check any dictionary for the definition. Atheism is not faith, it's lack of religious faith. No matter how many times people repeat the tired old "atheism is just another religion", this nonsense doesn't start making sense. Now that we are done with this, I can continue reading your post. :)

Even strong atheism has nothing to do with faith. It's not faith, it's rational belief, expectations that you have about reality based on evidence (or lack thereof). Having said that, I am definitely a "strong atheist", or whatever you like to call it.

My contention that most scientists are atheists doesn't lack power. CHECK THE FUCKING FACTS, FOR FUCK'S SAKE. There are probably hundreds of surveys that show the same thing. Scientists generally tend to not believe in gods, Nobel prize winners (in physics/medicine) tend to not believe in gods, and the higher your IQ is the less likely you are to believe in god. In the US National Academy of Science only 7 fucking percent believe in personal god.

Now I never claimed that my preference for atheists was based on any strong supportive evidence. I freely admit that it's just my assertion, that's what I think based on my worldview (and I may very well be wrong). Your arguments about decision making are very convincing and let me just reiterate that my claim was not intended as anything more than a personal opinion (alhtough one I hold dear to me).

But all that said, I honestly don't feel compelled to argue. With all respect that I have for you (and I do have some, as you are obviously somewhat intelligent and a professional in a relevant field), I just don't see a point in arguing with a religious (highly religious for that) guy. I understand very well the arguments for tolerance, dialog and stuff, but at some point I realised that it's basically crap. Religious people are morons (I know all about the defition, but the word has another meaning now, unlike "atheism", which you attempt to redefine) and that's basically it.

I am a very rational person, I was a winner of a national debate championship once, so believe me that I am being teared apart by this contradiction. On the one hand, I'd like to discuss this rationally, but on the other, I saw enough to know that it would be pointless. The only practical way to heal you from your delusion would be to use the very tools religious sects use. Incarceration, sleep deprivation, repetition, indoctrination, etc. Mild electric shocks may also help. After that it would be possible to start discussing it rationally.

There is a huge hole in your reasoning. Just because a principle makes you happier, doesn't mean it's true. There can be 100 principles contradicting each other, some of which may make you happier. It doesn't mean all of them are true (because only 1 can be). Furthermore, religious is used as a post-hoc justification for decent behaviour. You would be a happy and good person anyway, but because you are religious you argue that religion makes you happy and good. This is day-and-night different from the scientific method, as you must understand perfectly well (doublethink is invaluable to religions...).

I hope that was rational enough to you. I hope you will excuse the lack of decorum and the briefness of the argument, but as a person who believes (based on empirical evidence) that religious faith is bullshit and it's generally impossible to persuade religious people that it's so, I am not very compelled to waste my time doing just that.

Re:Why?

[DarkSarin]

Swearing at me will change nothing, and at the risk of this degenerating into a flame-fest, I will reply. Your actions are your own.

First, I did check my definitions of atheism. There are a number of definitions, including that given on Wikipedia, that require an atheist to maintain that belief (and it is a belief, if not faith) and disregard all possible evidence. The difference between faith, which I generally define as a belief that tends toward action, and rational belief is small.

Yes, there were holes in my arguments--I freely admit that I did not make all my definitions clear, and that I did not close every logical alternative. I am alone responsible for what I wrote. Allow me a moment, however, to clear up one minor issue, and I'll shut up.

When you say that there can be 100 principles contradicting each other, some of which may make you happier, you are correct in a way. Do not, however, mistake pleasure (which is momentary) for happiness, which is lasting. Furthermore, only the principle that gives the greatest happiness has much importance. I don't care about ideas that only give a few moments of pleasure, but bring sorrow or misery or problems down the road. That's not a rational way to make decisions. The rational decision maker must seek to maximize their long-term happiness. Otherwise they have not maximized their happiness at all, but have sacrificed future happiness for immediate happiness (or pleasure). Now I admit that this isn't always the case--it can be a false dichotomy to think that there is always a trade-off.

Your assertion that religion is used as a post-hoc justification for decent behavior is patently ridiculous. It can be used that way, but so can psychology. Religion can also be applied a priori, and then cause decent behavior. I have seen enough cases of individuals who, prior to joining themselves to a religion were uncivil and treated others horribly, and when they applied the teachings of that religion, became much more pleasant to be around. Can this happen without religion? Certainly--I would be pretty stupid to argue the other way; but to say that religion is only post hoc justification when people have provably become better (eg, more civil and pleasant to be around) as a result of applying the teachings of a religion is an insult to your own intelligence.

As far as "my delusion", I don't think that you have a good understanding of how religion works. Repetition is necessary for any teaching method. Any religion that uses the others (incarceration, sleep deprivation, indoctrination [although I'm not sure what your definition of this is], or electric shocks) is worthless. I have nothing to do with such chicanery and madness. I can honestly say that my church has never used any of those (with the possible exception of indoctrination, which could be defined merely as teaching the doctrines of the religion--but I think you have something more sinister in mind). I cannot, therefore, credit the rest of that comment with any validity.

Just as it seems impossible to persuade a religious person that their viewpoints are "crap", I think that convincing an atheist that there might be some merit to religious is equally impossible. Both seem to have a predisposition to argue their viewpoint and ignore facts.

Regarding your link--there is some evidence there, but I would be very cautious about using that evidence. First, it is being published by an organization which has a clear mission--to promote atheism. That's hardly a nuetral or unbiased entitity. Second, although there is a clear decline in the belief in God, there are many possible reasons for this--one being that it is simply a popular belief. This may be, like many other things, merely a burp in the community--a fad of disbelief, if you will--that will pass given time. Or not. The point is that many scientists recieve their education from other scientists.

Speaking as someone who is in an educational institution as a student, I know how easy it

Re:Why?

[danila]

1) Definitions of atheism that say it's a belief are (to use Wikipedia terminology) POV, i.e. biased.
2) I didn't mean short-term pleasure by happiness, I meant whatever you implied by that. If it's long-term happiness - fine.
3) But if you say religion is good because it gives you the maximum happiness, this is BS because there is no way to tell it. It's quite a statement - "I believe because that's what is the best for me"... Nonsense. How do you know it's true, did you already test all belief systems in the world, including a thousand or so religions?
4) I didn't mean that religion is always a post-hoc justification, just that it may be in your case. I don't know you personally, but I have an impression (perhaps not justified at all) that you wouldn't be that bad guy were you an atheist.
5) This is all irrelevant, however, because the main question is (going back to the rationality/irrationality roots of our discussion) - is there a god or not, and if yes, which one? If there is no god, believing in one is idiocy, even if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.
6) I didn't imply that your church uses this methods, god forbid. :) My point was that most religious people (and irrational people in general) can't be persuaded that there is no god (and so to become atheists). One of the reasons is that they are usually not interested in arguments and just repeat their "truths" (some oversimplification here). The only way to succeed is to hold their attention long enough and to use extra help of the special re-educational methods that many sects (I never called your church a sect) successfully use. That was an attempt at humour, although there was some serious point there as well. :)
7) An important distinction - not all atheists are rationalists. Now, to convince a rationalist is very easy if you can give some convincing evidence that god exists. If you give it, most would listen. So far I was not made aware of any evidence worth paper (disks) it's written on. Of course, if you have anything, by all means, go ahead and share it with me.
8) Nature magazine has a mission to promote science. The reference to this research is available in many places online and you can check the nature.com archive if you don't trust others. This may not be to your (and other religious guys) liking, but if it's published in Nature and for 6 years no flaws are found in the study, then it can be trusted as if it was the word of god. :) You can basically treat their conclusions as facts.
9) Your bullshit explanations are irrelevant. Check out the article in Nature and the discussion of the article (see a citation index) and find out that the main explanation is - good knowledge of science is generally incompatible with religious belief.
10) The IQ findings are not in this study, they are in several other studies, including those performed by Christian research institutions in the USA. Google for them, should be very easy to find. It's not a very big difference, but it's there.
11) In conclusion.
a) There is no evidence that god exists.
b) One can easily use irrational arguments to justify a belief in god.
c) There is no evidence that religion is good, and plenty of evidence that it's bad (we haven't discussed it now, but it's there).
d) There is ample evidence that the more a person knows and the more intelligent he is, the less likely he is to believe some crap about god.
e) Most people who believe in gods are morons.
f) Everyone should become an atheist, because it's the only rational decision for an intelligent person.

Re:Why?

[Tassach]

Waving a gun around...

The issue is concealed (or open) carry. Carrying a pistol in a holster, or a rifle/shotgun on a sling, dose not constitute "waving it around". The act to which you refer is known as BRANDISHING a firearm; doing so without cause is a criminal act, and is legal grounds to have your CCW permit revoked (if you are fortunate enough to live in a shall-issue state).

Baring it in an open carry fashion *IS* recklessly endangering the lives of innocent bystanders, given our population density here.

Bullshit

Virginia is a shall-issue state: if you apply for a CCW permit, the burden of proof is on the state to show just cause why you should be denied this RIGHT. Northern Virginia is just as densly-populated as New York. Walking around Crystal City, for example, is no different than walking around downtown Manhattan. Yet amazingly, despite VA's liberal concealed-carry laws, it has not been magically transformed into Dodge City, and the Beltway does not transform into the shootout at the OK Corral at rush hour.

The people in NoVA aren't being recklessly endangered by their discretely armed neighbors, so what's so special about New York that makes it exempt to the laws of common sense as well as the Constitution? Could it be that those new yorkers just start pissing themselves and rioting in the street if they happen see someone walking around with a holstered pistol, or god forbid, a rifle slung over their shoulder? Dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria...

getting in packed subway cars where they can be grabbed away

Your ignorance (lack of knowledge) is showing. Do you have any idea how difficult it is for someone other than the bearer to grab a pistol out of a properly-designed holster? It's orders of magnitude more difficult than it is to lift someone's wallet. Even a small gun tucked in your waistband is very difficult for someone to take without you knowing it. Besides, the WHOLE POINT of concealed carry is so that RANDOM STRANGERS DON'T KNOW THAT YOU ARE ARMED.

I have to ask you if you think it would be a good idea to encourage the residents of Baltimore to all carry around handguns on their persons

The drug dealers and steet thugs ALREADY DO carry on a routine basis. Given the 80%+ recidivism rate, it's safe to say that the majority of them are already convicted felons who have been barred (via due process) from owning firearms under federal law. Indeed, real-world experience demonstrates the exact opposite: (AFIK) in EVERY state which has adopted liberal concealed-carry laws, the rate of violent crime has dropped faster than in states which have not. Correlation may not imply causation, but it definately DISproves the Democrat-party-line myth that guns in the hands of honest citizens encourages more violent crime.

The Democrat-controlled state legislature has been trying to address this problem for years by passing ever more draconian gun laws, but they miss the simple point that CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY THE LAW. Having properly trained, contientious, law-abiding armed citizens on the street cannot be any worse than a city where only the criminals are running around armed to the teeth.

Citzens who have proven their compentency with their arms and who have demonstrated their understand how and when (and when not!) to use deadly force absolutely, constitute a well-regulated militia BY DEFINITION, in the exact sense the founding fathers intended. A periodic examination to demonstrate a minimal level of compentancy is precisely what Hamilton was talking about in the passage of Federalist #29 cited earlier. [Actually, Hamilton's idea was that ALL the members of the militia should turn out once a year to PROVE that they possessed a working firearm and basic competancy with it! Serving in the militia was seen as a civic DUTY and obligation held by all able-bodied men.]

The pu

Re:Why?

[Artifakt]

Forgive You? Certainly. Please forgive me for contributing to your anger.

Re:Why?

[Rod.Dorman]

In essence it's a DRM flag that says "don't allow this broadcast to be copied, recorded or anything else". So you can't record it to video tape or on your Tivo or any other device.

The FCC release explicitly states "The flag does not restrict copying in any way." and
Compliance refers to what the covered demodulator can do with the broadcast content. If the flag is present, the content can be sent in one of several permissible ways, including (1) over an analog output, e.g. to existing analog equipment;

I would interpret "over an analog output" to cover recording it to video tape.

Re:Why?

[cronius]

I didn't read the entire thread, it's just too much, I didn't bother, sorry.

f) Everyone should become an atheist, because it's the only rational decision for an intelligent person.

Throughout time, we humans have found an explanation of life/the universe that fits with reality, and been more or less satisfied with that.

In ancient times, everyone believed the world was flat and that everything was circeling around it because it fits with observation.

They also believed in God (or whatnot) because it explains everything, it fits.

Now people "believe" in science because it fits, everything can be explained with it. It's not a beliefe in it's sence, it's "the ultimate truth", explaining everything and explaining itself. Everything fits, nothing is left to imagination, surely it must be correct.

However, there is one thing that comes to mind. The creation of the universe. What happened at the beginning of time? Why is there a beginning of time? If not, why not? What happened before everything? What caused the universe to exist?

Science thinks it can explain this, it just doesn't have enough data on it yet.

So the whole logic of "action-reaction" in science's way falls short at it's most crucial point: the beginning of the universe.

However, most religions can explain this perfectly fine (they just can't prove it though). So in such sence, it's more logical to say that "they both fit equally well". They both explain equally well in their own way the universe, and life and everything, since neither of them can prove that it's more correct than the other.

We simply don't have the "ultimate truth" at this time in history.

Re:Why?

[danila]

First, it's a common misconception that people believed in flat Earth. Yeah, there was a time when most people believed it, but it was in very primitive times, when people basically didn't really have an idea. In ancient world people (educated people, that is) knew basically that the world was probably round, and by 200 before our era we even knew it's circumference, thanks to the ingenious experiment by Eratosthenes.

I agree with your rough explanation of progression of our worldviews from simple to advanced, myth -> religion -> science. But your argument that religion is "better" in explaining the creation of the Universe than science is is flawed. To determine which is better you need to define the criteria. Time and time again it was shown that religious explanations are useless, pointless and simply wrong (there are countless examples, anyone can think of many).

The explanation that religion gives (God created the world) is pathetic. It is worse than no explanation at all, because it is wrong, confusing, full of inconsistencies, is not backed by any evidence whatsoever, useless, untestable, etc., etc.!

Re:Why?

[cronius]

The point is not to defend any specific religion, the point is to defend the possibility of an existence of something higher than ourselves.

I find the creation of the universe an interesting question, simply because we don't have an answer to it. Things that are hard to wrap the mind round, like what is nothing (not empty space, but that which is beyond space - complete nothingness), and the likes are interesting subjects without a clear answer/perception.

I'm not necessarily saying that one (science/higher powers) is better than the other, but I don't see how it is reasonable to totally outrule the possibility of an existence which is higher than ourselves, when it's an equally well explanation of the creation of the universe as science is. Everthing about the universe is pretty straight forward (big bang, gravity, galaxies, expansion of the universe, and so on), but it's whatever happened before that that is up for questioning.

I mean, we just don't know. Something godlike could very well exist or have existed, and yet everything science proves is still right. It's not an illogical answer, far future science could very well embrace it.

It's an open question. One might say "it's reasonable to think this and that" or "that just has to be wrong" or whatever, but not being openminded about questions that don't have answers is just blindfolding oneself IMO.

Actually, writing this made me think of the classic question: If we (in the future) buildt a perfect computurized "virtual universe", just stuffing in laws of physics and such and hit the on-button, letting it evolve; would the intelligent creatures it (hopefully) ends up creating within the universe become self-aware? (which again brings the question of consciousness...)

First HD-3000 card buyer!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm glad to become the first criminal on July 1st, 2005.

Re:First HD-3000 card buyer!

[Zorilla]

Possibly a joke, but I'm guessing the law doesn't have any post facto clauses. Just the same as how cars before manufactured before 1967 don't need seatbelts.

Re:First HD-3000 card buyer!

[Clappingman]

So what they really need to do now is step up production, before the law comes in.

Re:First HD-3000 card buyer!

[pedrop357]

Hey this all sounds a lot like what happened in '94 before the AWB went into effect.

Gotta wonder how much "pre-ban" cards will cost in a few years...

Re:First HD-3000 card buyer!

[Baal Sebub]

I'm guessing the law doesn't have any post facto clauses.

Correct. Follow the last link:
Q: Can I use these cards after July 1st 2005? A: Yes you can use them, they are "grandfathered" into the new regulations. It will always be completely legal to use them. The card ignores the copy right bit and if a show has this bit enabled, the card doesn't care and will save the stream in full quality anyway.

Re:First HD-3000 card buyer!

[Prothonotar]

Now if only the OTA channels had anything worth copying...

US Laws

[Clappingman]

Perhaps a publicly available hardware hack would be the answer to such legislation? I mean deCSS worked well for everyone, no?

Re:US Laws

[TheRaven64]

A better analogy than DeCSS is the copyright flag on CDDA. This flag is set when a copy is made of a copyright track, and compliant copiers are not allowed to duplicate the copy of the copy. I don't think I've seen a compliant copier for quite a while...

Re:US Laws

[eobanb]

There's a copyright flag on CDDA???

Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

"It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005

But don't forget, despite the zillion of harmless, mundane things the government won't allow you to do, America is still the Land Of The Free (tm).

Those who have their doubts, please report to school for your free re-education. Don't forget to pledge allegiance to the flag on the way past. But try not to smoke any dope, or attempt to gamble on a sporting event.

Thank you.

Message ends.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[TummyX]

Being free doesn't guarantee you the right to steal from others.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[gowen]

Taping things off the TV to watch at a later date constitutes theft now? On what planet do you live?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[geoffspear]

Well, since the FCC order explictly says it doesn't forbid you to tape things off the TV to watch them later, I suggest you RTFA before you criticize him.

And as far as I can tell, it will only become illegal to sell (or, possibly, manufacture, even for your own use) these cards next year; they won't suddenly become illegal to possess on July 1.

Distributing copyrighted content, online or otherwise, whether you're ingoring a broadcast flag or there was no flag in the first place, will remain just as legal or illegal on July 1st as it is on June 30th.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[gowen]

the FCC order explictly says it doesn't forbid you to tape things off the TV to watch them later

Unless your mechanism for doing so is a PC capture card. In which case it does.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[TummyX]

the FCC order explictly says it doesn't forbid you to tape things off the TV to watch them later

Unless your mechanism for doing so is a PC capture card. In which case it does.


Geez. So don't use the capture card. You aren't forced to use a capture card that responds to that bit and the manufacturers are perfectly free to add a check for that bit. If you don't like it, tough. You don't have a right to own a video card that doesn't read that bit and private companies aren't obliged to provide you with one. If you don't like any "no copying" rules set by the industry then you're perfectly free to not consume any of their media.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

Being free doesn't mean I can't capture the electrons that are being beamed into my property and turn them into visible light in the way I please, at any time I please?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[TummyX]

If the producer of that TV show decides that they only want to allow it to be watched when they want it to (which would be the case if they flagged that bit) then I you have a choice to follow their rules or just don't watch their show -- you don't have a right to watch their show. If you don't like their conditions then tough -- don't watch it. I should note that this is like the GPL. Nothing forces you to follow the GPL but the GPL states that you only have right to use the source under the given conditions. If you break those conditions then you have no right to use source in that way because it would be considered stealing. The source's copyright is owned by the author and they can grant ot revoke its usage under their own conditions and you can't complain because it's not yours to complain about. Why do you think you have a *right* over other people's property?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[gowen]

You aren't forced to use a capture card that responds to that bit

Except all other kinds will soon be illegal.

You don't have a right to own a video card that doesn't read that

No, you don't. But in a free country, you'd have that right.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

Err Honestly thats where you are wrong. Alot of todays media is copy cat stuff, most of the industry copies itself over and ovver in many different ways, the only deliniation they have are copyright laws that allow them to "Purchase" the right to copy something, which is rather rediculous if you ask me. Copying is copying in any way shape or form, and doing one thing for one person and another for some one else is a double standard, one of which has always been there in the media industry. The RIA the DMCA, are all pointless, and useless to studio artist, your shit still gets copied and stolen, and no law will ever prevent that. You statment is boldly out of context and very mis-informed from the prespective of a studio artist. The Coperate machine has a way of getting things even if you refuse.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

If you beam electrons into my house, I have a right to do as I see fit with those electrons within the confines of my house. If you do not like my conditions, then don't beam a signal to my house.

Why do you think that anyone has right to forcibly beam electrons into my house and then tell me how I can capture them and view them?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[enrico_suave]

That's the whole point, well sorta...

You can buy a card NOW that ignores the bit (presuming saner heads prevail and the EFF is succesful in challenging the FCC's mandate over reach on this broadcast flag thingie)... you can buy a card after july 2005, presuming it was MANUFACTURED prior to July 2005... After which it will be "illegal" (in the US) to manufacturer devices which don't honor the broadcast flag.

It's bad enough Tivo voluntarily will now delete Pay Per View from your box after a set expiration date... now you'll have even less say about what you can and cannot do with the content piped (or broadcast) into your home.

So in short the big picture is about consumers rights and where the control rests for fair access controls/DRM -- taping "will and grace" isn't piracy/crime, but the content providers don't seem to understand that.

(i'm sure there's a joke in there, but i'll leave it be for now =P)

e.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[TummyX]

If you beam electrons into my house, I have a right to do as I see fit with those electrons within the confines of my house


If you mirror your GPL-ed source code on my server or make the source code freely available on the internet then I have a right to do as I see fit with that source code.

Hell, if you're on the same subnet as a mirror, you're getting the source coast broadcasted (effectively) to you.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[TummyX]

Oh, and if your neighbour breaks your WIFI encryption key then he has every right to use your credit card numbers, passwords and anything else he snoops because they were transmitted into his house....

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

So we agree then?

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

Although the activities of credit card fraud are still illegal, I actually agree with you that people can use signals they receive in the air however they want, and if my AP is responding to your signals in a way that is harmful to me, then it is my fault for not securing my equipment.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Waffle Iron]

If the producer of that TV show decides that they only want to allow it to be watched when they want it to (which would be the case if they flagged that bit) then I you have a choice to follow their rules or just don't watch their show -- you don't have a right to watch their show.

Wrong. That's not what the law says. Even under this dubious broadcast flag regulation, you are allowed to save and view copies of TV shows, regardless of the producers' wishes.

Why do you think you have a *right* over other people's property?

You seem to be confused about just what is "property" under copyright law. If I have a legally obtained copy (including copies made under fair use), that's my property, and I can use it as I see fit. The copyright holder has no rights over my property.

What the copyright holder owns is a limited right to prevent me from making *further copies* of any copies I have.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

"America is still the Land Of The Free (tm)."

It is Jayzuzz Land!

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[LocalH]

No, but being free does guarantee me the right to capture bits from the air, decode them, and store them for later viewing.

Who the hell are you to tell me that I can't have access to the raw video stream? What I do with that stream determines whether I'm breaking the law or not, not the mere fact that I'm capturing the stream.

I bet you're one of these RIAA/MPAA shills who advocate giving all benefits and rights to the content providers and giving the average person NOTHING except exactly what you say and not more. And worse, you want this done in perpetuity, so that there is no media that we can buy that doesn't require some kind of ongoing payment to retain a copy forever.

Fuck you. Being free doesn't guarantee you the right to tell me that I'm not smart enough to decide whether or not something is legal or moral, but that I have to have the law prevent me from doing what I want with this signal, as long as I don't redistribute it.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[alexo]

> If you beam electrons into my house, I have a right to do as I see fit
> with those electrons within the confines of my house. If you do not like my
> conditions, then don't beam a signal to my house.
>
> Why do you think that anyone has right to forcibly beam electrons into my
> house and then tell me how I can capture them and view them?

A government is a funny thing.

It can take your money (taxes, fines), your freedom and, in some cases, even your life. It can limit or even prevent you from using your property in ways that it does not approve of ("intellectual property" laws, etc.). Hell, it even dictates what you can and cannot do with your own body (suicide and "substance abuse" laws).

So, yes, the government can (and does) grant third parties a permit to beam electrons into your house while at the same time preventing you from doing anything with said electrons.

Re:Cognitive Dissonance

[Anonymous Coward]

If thats teh case, then I suppose none of us would use electricity either, since those electrons are beamed into our house. Guess we shouldn't be using though electrons and the DMCA wouldn't exsist, hell why would there be a need. ;)

Is that as bad as ripping the tag of your jeans ?

[anti-NAT]

cause I'm in trouble now !

Have the older card, works great

[YetAnotherName]

I've got the older pcHDTV card for Linux, the so-called model 2000, and it works great. With a RAID array and three quarters of a terabyte of storage, I've been legally time-shifting broadcast HDTV. (You've got to see the cute freckles on Jennifer Garner on Alias!)

I will go ahead and buy one of the new ones, too; it would be nice to do dual-stream recording.

And Linux only. Does it get any better than that?

Re:Have the older card, works great

[Pipermalibu]

Yes it can get better than that. Many, many areas of the country do not broadcast HDTV, and even then...who the hell wants to watch network TV? I want to see my Six Feet Under or Movies or Discovery in HDTV. So when someone finally gets the idea of controlling a sat or cable box AND records HDTV AND ignores the broadcast flag....THEN they will have a TOTAL winner. No matter what OS they support!

Re:Have the older card, works great

[Anonymous Coward]

Mod down flat screen link troll. This guy's posts are never very informative, and always hastily written just to get the stupid scam link posted all over slashdot.

Re:Have the older card, works great

[iceborer]

You've got to see the cute freckles on Jennifer Garner on Alias!

Those aren't freckles, those are her tits you insensitive clod!

Re:Have the older card, works great

[Beyond_GoodandEvil]

Freckles on Jennifer Garner? To quote the great Zap Branigan, "What are you, gay?"

Re:Have the older card, works great

[geoffspear]

who the hell wants to watch network TV?

According to a quick google search, about 61 million Americans, last Wednesday during prime time.

But I'm sure the 10 people watching the Discovery channel during the same time period all feel vastly superior.

Re:Have the older card, works great

[Anonymous Coward]

The unpretentious of the world thank you.

Re:Have the older card, works great

[WoBIX]

Have you watched the Discovery Channel lately?

Discovery and TLC are turning into the same "reality-TV" wasteland that network television has become. The only redeeming quality is that typically someone actually achieves something productive by the end of a show.

Mythbusters and @Discovery are pretty much the only things worth watching.

Re:Have the older card, works great

[geoffspear]

Well, to be fair to Discovery/TLC, I'd really rather watch a bunch of real people build something cool or fix up their house than a "reality" show about "real" people who have to do disgusting things and/or stab each other in the back to win cash and prizes.

pcHDTV

[Silwenae]

This is good to see, they've been out of stock, what, going on two months now? I've been (im)patiently awaiting buying one of these to build my Myth box.

The card itself won't be illegal as the headline implies, but it will be illegal to import any card or component that ignores the Broadcast flag. Any cards or tuners built and installed prior to July 1st, 2005 will be grandfathered in and should work just fine.

This is one of they key reasons to support the EFF - visit their HDTV Action Center and and learn more about the Broadcast Flag. The second link about the Broadcast Flag has some great information and links to building a HTPC for multiple OS's and exactly what the federal government is trying to do.

I've very disappointed by the FCC's decision - it shouldn't be up to Hollywood to decide what TV I can and can't record and when I want to watch it. This battle has been fought (and won!) before, and here is the government messing with it again.

Support the EFF and make your voice heard!

Re:pcHDTV

[Ph33r th3 g(O)at]

Who signed the DMCA again? Oh yes, it was William Jefferson Clinton. Who signed the No Electronic Theft Act? Same guy! The Sonny Bono (may the brimstone sear his skin forever) Copyright Term Extension Act? Yep, Clinton again!

I am far from a Bush apologist--I even voted against the man this past election. But I am under no illusion that the Democrats would be any less subservient to the government's corporate masters. Please give the partisan references a rest unless they hold water.

Re:pcHDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the big myths I hear all the time is about the so-called "liberal democrats" and even the "liberal media" for that matter. They all take sides within our curent political arena's bounds.

But, when you think about it... the dems aren't exactly liberal.. they're more slightly left of the extreme right.

Take this little test and you'll kinda get the picture: Political Compass

Re:pcHDTV

[jocknerd]

These are some of the reasons why Michael Moore labeled Clinton as a great Republican President.

Re:pcHDTV

[Enry]

Lessee...

Reduced the size of government? Check
Balanced the budget? Check
Sent the military all over the place? Check
Made Americans feel good about themselves? Check
Reduced unemployment? Check
Got people off welfare? Check

Yup. He's a Republican all right. The best one in at least 50 years. The current crop are Republicans in name only. They're certainly not conservative, unless you count that whole 'moral values' thing.

Re:pcHDTV

[sqlrob]

And how many republicans voted against the DMCA? If it never got to his desk, it would never have been signed.

Face it, they both suck.

Re:pcHDTV

[MikeBabcock]

Here in Canada, the government messed with it and made it legal to copy music for private use; we have a resulting levy on blank media.

I'm not sure what it is about elections that people don't understand -- call your local rep and tell them what you think.

Re:pcHDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

nobody even mentioned the opposite of your point. I know it's fashionable to say slashdot has gone downhill, but this whiny liberal bullshit bent is really taking all of the joy out of this now.

the tagline ought to be changed to "Opinions for Liberals. Feedback that Reinforces."

Re:pcHDTV

[chez69]

can you fucking assclowns stop blaming bush for everything? every slashdot thread are polluted with this shit.

can we discuss technology, please?

Re:pcHDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

It's still Ashcroft in comparison to Kuro5hin's Michael Moore.

Re:pcHDTV

[tji]

It's certainly true that both the democrats and republicans are greatly influenced by corporate lobbyists. There are still democrats pushing hard for extreme copyright changes. Fritz Hollings, aka Senator Disney, is one of the main proponents pushing for the broadcast flag. He is a democrat.

This is broader than just a partisan issue. Congressmen from both sides have been lobbied to believe that we are in the process of a broad change away from an industrial to an information economy. While this is partly true, it does not justify their conclusion that we need new laws to control the copyrighted material - or to mandate regulations that necessitate computer hardware that takes the control away from the owner and gives it to big media corporations (which is what the broadcast flag does.. if any digital TV is on a PC at all it must be encrypted, and protected at every point from that dangerous owner of the hardware).

That said, beyond this issue you can find MANY examples of republicans being much more influenced by their corporate overlords than democrats. The Bush administration is the most extreme example of corporatism I have witnessed. Read "Crimes Against Nature" by Robert Kennedy Jr. for many examples of Bush emasculating environmental regulations, and appointing former industry lobbyists to EPA offices that should be protecting citizens, not looking out for corporations. Similar examples can be seen in the USDA and FDA. Take a look at "Fast Food Nation" by Eric Schlosser for some alarming examples of the powerlessness of these federal regulators under Republican administrations beholden to big business. The November '04 issue of "Vanity Fair" has a followup article by Mr. Schlosser with some shocking examples of the problems we face because of the Bush administration's policies.

What we really need is growth of The Green Party, to counter-balance U.S. Congress Inc., a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business.

Re:pcHDTV

[Fnkmaster]

Please shut the fuck up - you are the one who ends up sounding like a whiny bitch, as do most conservatives.

Now as to your lamely expressed point, we all agree completely here that the Democrats have done fuck all to protect our civil liberties in recent years and have run roughshod over them just as much as Republicans have. I am only a liberal in the sense of having generally socially liberal beliefs - meaning the opposite of an authoritarian. In fact, until several years ago I used to describe myself as a liberal Republican, until it became clear to me back in the late 90s that the Republican party was becoming the party of rural hicks without an education, and the party of religious authoritarianism.

But you don't have to be a socialist income redistributer to see that the Bush administration and the Republicans in Congress are even worse when it comes to civil liberties than the Democrats. Now, in addition to having our rights online trampled, our rights in the real world get trampled too. This is the party you suggest as an alternative? And you dare to use the word 'liberal' as if it were a dirty word because we believe that we have basic rights that must not be infringed?

So I say again: shut the fuck up, and leave if you don't like it around here.

Re:pcHDTV

[Fnkmaster]

Yes, Clinton did sign a lot of bad legislation for our online rights. Nonetheless, I'd still choose him again over our current Republican administration when it comes to social issues any day - our current administration, and the Republican Congress is far more authoritarian than the Democrats ever were. Now, our civil liberties get stomped on in the real world, not just online.

In Clinton's defense, most of this stuff was completely unopposed in Congress by Democrats and Republicans. I wish he would have taken a principled stand too, but I think the Internet was so new that none of our elected officials knew what to do with it, and just bowed to the first special interest group that came along with large donations and said they needed this legislation to protect them from all the dangerous online pirates.

The answer to this is to find younger legislators, people running for Congress for the first time, rising state lawmakers and the like, and lobby them, give donations, and try to help secure a new generation of political leaders who are aware that Hollywood and big media's interest run directly counter to the interests of the populace on these issues, so there is a counterpoint. I don't really care if these legislators are Democrats or socially liberal Republicans, as long as they are open to the ideas involved.

You'll find that a few thousand dollars worth of donated money means a lot outside of big national races, and gets you a lot of eartime with people who aren't yet running for high profile offices but will be in the future.

Re:pcHDTV

[Anonymous Coward]

That sounds far worse!

I watch no TV and listen to little non-live music, and I'd much rather only pay for services I actually participate in.

Levies attached to general purpose components that have little to do with the content they're trying to protect! That's a crazy "solution".

Pay music royalties whether-or-not you use the music!

That sucks.

This card is the answer to my prayers

[aldousd666]

I've been putting off the hdtv thing for a while now, and this will bring it to me affordably for the cost of the card, and a workhorse pc to sit -set side. At $189 is surprisingly affordable! My 21" plasma monitor should get me through until my bank account permits me to buy a larger theatre sized monitor. This is great!

Re:This card is the answer to my prayers

[mesach]

You have a 21" PLASMA?

If so, where can I get one, or did you really mean LCD.

Re:This card is the answer to my prayers

[timeOday]

I'm confused about whether this card would do anything for me. Does it only work with broadcast media? Not satellite, not cable?

Re:This card is the answer to my prayers

[Carnildo]

Digital satellite and digital cable use a different encoding system, so no, it doesn't work with them. It does work with analog cable, though, and does a reasonably good job with it.

I'm more interested in a video card

[EmagGeek]

... with an HDTV output... it would be oh-so-nice to throw 1080 resolution to my 42" HDTV..

I haven't seen any thus far... has anyone else?

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[!the!bad!fish!]

Have you considered a PC to HDTV converter?

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Anonymous Coward]

some hdtv's take DVI. maybe they all do, but I am not sure.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Zorilla]

You would be in luck if your HDTV set has a DVI input. If not, well, does anybody know if DVI-to-component coverters exist?

I don't own an HDTV set, so I'm not sure if that would work for 1080i. Hopefully a typical PC video card can do 1920x1080 interlaced

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Cloud 9]

VGA-to-component transcoders exist, in the ~$150-$200USD range.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Leibherk]

using this
it is possible to convert from the VGA out to HDTV.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[JDevers]

You haven't looked very hard, have you? The last two generations of ATi cards all support a DVI to component adapter that ATI sells on their website for $15-$20(I THINK that the all in Wonder brands come with them, but I could be wrong) and of course, if you have DVI input, you could use that...or any other DVI-enabled card. I think the last few of NVidia's do too, but I haven't kept up with them (since it isn't what I have...).

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[cruelworld]

Is that DVI-D (i.e. digital) or analog DVI?

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[PhoenxHwk]

There are three types of DVI. DVI-D is digital (the standard for digital input to an HDTV ... same thing as HDMI). DVI-A is analog, which should be easily convertable to component. DVI video cards output DVI-I, which carries both analog and digital. You can tell if you have analog support by looking at the keying on the connector (the big bar-shaped pin). If the keying pin is surrounded by 4 pins, you have analog.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[dirty]

Most (all?) Radeons and reasonably new nVidia cards can do 1080i just fine. It might take some fine tuning to get your TV to lock on the signal, but it is possible.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Jason Hood]

I have one, it doesnt work as advertised. Only a few resolutions work and they chop off the edges. Its a piece of crap...

--Just an FYI ;)

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[dirty]

Radeon 8500 and higher (maybe not some of the budget cards) all support some form of HDTV component out dongle. For the 8500 it's pretty much the same as the DVI to VGA adapter, it just sends a signal to the card to tell it to start outputting a tv signal instead of an RGB signal.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[The Snowman]

You would be in luck if your HDTV set has a DVI input. If not, well, does anybody know if DVI-to-component coverters exist?

I don't own an HDTV set, so I'm not sure if that would work for 1080i. Hopefully a typical PC video card can do 1920x1080 interlaced

Yes, there are converters out there. Getting the resolution right can be tricky with some video cards, sometimes you need 540 scan lines in progressive mode and the HDTV monitor will be tricked into 1080i. Try googling for HDTV, DVI, tutorial, etc. and I am sure something will come up. That is how I learned everything I know about HDTV.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Sardak]

and of course, if you have DVI input, you could use that...

Being that I've tried this within the last few weeks, I can say that simply having a DVI input on the TV isn't enough. The TV's input uses a different format than the computer's output. We were able to get it to sync at 1080 (nothing lower would even work), but about a 50-75 pixel border was missing around all 4 sides of the screen. Not exactly what I was looking for.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Anonymous Coward]

DVI output from most cards doesnt work with the DVI-looking input on HDTVs. The TVs use DVI-HDCP encrypted signals, and usually cant use plain ol DVI.

Its also why everything with a DVI jack for TV use is so damn expensive... add $80-100 on each end of that $50 cable for the HDCP encoder and decoder. Go down to best buy or whatever, and check out how much more a HD directv box with DVI-HDCP output is than the same thing without it. Last I looked it was about $200, but that was a while ago.

Hooray for corporately owned government.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Fancia]

That missing border is perfectly normal for televisions, although the precise size varies depending on the television.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Anonymous Coward]

ATI sells both VGA-Component and DVI-Component adapters at US$30.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Anonymous Coward]

Being that I've tried this within the last few weeks, I can say that simply having a DVI input on the TV isn't enough. The TV's input uses a different format than the computer's output. We were able to get it to sync at 1080 (nothing lower would even work), but about a 50-75 pixel border was missing around all 4 sides of the screen. Not exactly what I was looking for.

You have to adjust for the overscan. You can do this in your TV's service menu. I have done this with my Sony WEGA.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[stbdev]

Sadly, while the DVI connector is the same, the standard is not, so you probably* can't plug it directly into a VGA card. I was psyched to see the connector on my HDTV when I bought it, but then the manual explained that it is NOT for use in connecting to a PC. The HDTV signal is expecting 480, 720 or 1080 scan lines at 60MHz, and except for 640x480 you haven't got an exact match.
Search for "EnTech PowerStrip" to get all sorts of info on this, and beta on an app that will allow you to get some cards to output non-standard (in terms of VGA) formats that'll look right on an HDTV.
* Caveat: I'm sure someone will come back and say the HDTV they bought includes a scan-converter and does do this, so check your manual if you are unsure.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[neoshmengi]

You have two options. One is the ATI HDTV dongle that many people have mentioned. It is only compatible with certain ATI cards and it allows you to connect to your HDTV using component cables.

The other option is a transcoder that can be used with any graphics card but is a little more expensive. There is a review of both here http://www.htpcnews.com/main.php?id=transcoder_1

Many posters have said that these converters don't work because you get wonky resolutions where a lot of the screen is chopped off. The key to this is using a program called powerstrip which allows you to custom make resolutions that will turn out well on an HDTV. There is a tutorial here. http://www.htpcnews.com/main.php?id=powerstrip_gui de_1

For great advice, reviews, and forums go to http://www.htpcnews.com/ if you want to learn more about connecting PC's to HDTV's.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[ahkbarr]

Is this a secret menu not generally known, or is it easy to find on the WEGA? I have a 32" Zenith and I can find no such adjustment.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[rmull]

Newer TVs will have HDMI inputs, which AFAIK is essentially DVI-D + some PCM stream. (S/PIDIF?) No conversion should be necessary.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Zorilla]

I've always wondered about HDMI inputs and what their point was - that is unless it breaks out elsewhere so you can get the PCM audio signal to your home theater speakers and not the crappy built-in speakers. (Another gripe of mine being shitty speakers integrated into a $4,000 TV)

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[PW2]

Most LCD projectors have VGA-in which may be good enough?

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[MrPeach]

I have a DVI->RGB adapter - Silicon Image CP905DVI. It may only be available to qualified hardware developers though :)

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[MrPeach]

No, it's a DVI-A to VGA adapter. The only thing it does is route the analog signals from a DVI-A/DVI-I connector to a HD-15 connector.

Plug one of those into a DVI-D port and you gonna get nothing.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[MortisUmbra]

The problem is default resolutions.

I had the misfortune of telling my roomate I'd setup his HTPC for him. yeah, I would NEVER use an HTPC unless my TV (yay DLP's!!!!) had DVI input....you have to go in and create your own custom resolutions and figure out the specific timings (with horrible howto's written by people with NO writing skill (one huge paragraph makes it all readable....))

Yeah, suffice it to say, its a HORRIBLE solution, the text looks like crap compared to DVI, its just overall a nightmare and not worth it.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[Jason Hood]

Doing that in linux is a piece of cake. I am at a loss as to how to accomplish that under winders though.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[MortisUmbra]

Powerstrip. And it may be a piece of cakke to shange the resolution, but knowing what resolution to change it to is a WHOLE other ball of wax.

You see the fact that your TV does, for instance, 720p doesnt mean you can REALLY see that much of the screen. Overscan (yay requirements from the 50's) lops off almost the entire taskbar on most TV's which, as you might expect, makes it rather difficult to use your computer. So you have to set it just low enough to be functional and high enough that the TV will still display it....all this and your arent just entering 1024x768 and the computer does the rest. You are entering specific frequencies and timings.

Another nice part of the DLP's is they somewhat account for overscan, you can set a mode on the DVI input to fit the signal to the screen that basically gets rid of overscan but not entirely....very handy.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[buck68]

I don't have this, but I noticed it a while back:

NVidia Personal Cinema FX5700

I do have my computer connected to my HDTV. I don't use 1080i, I find 720p works better for me. It took me a lot of effort to make that work. I learned about the above card in that process. The card has two strengths:

• native component out. this is the way to go with HDTV. DVI is a nightmare, at least with my HDTV (a Toshiba).
• nvidia. I'm a linux user. Lots of linux users take issue with nvidia because of binary drivers, but for linux nothing works better

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[tehdaemon]

My brother-inlaw has the 5600 version of this, he got it for the component out. It works quite well.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[tji]

check out the htpc area at avsform.com

Some things to check out:

- newer drivers from ATI and Nvidia have some support for HDTV resolutions (1080i and 720p) as well as support for custom timings.
- The ATI Radeons have an adapter to support component video outputs for HDTVs that don't have RGB or DVI.
- Check out "powerstrip", which allows custom timings, including HDTV resolutions, with many cideo cards.
- The S3 omnichrome cards claims HDTV support, and is supposed to support component video outputs. But, I don't know if this was ever delivered or if it's still vapor.

But, if you're looking to use 1080i for normal PC graphics, don't bother. The 'i' is for "interlaced" which looks terrible with PC video, and sharp horizontal lines. 720p looks great, if your TV supports it.

Also, since you said 42", you might be using a digital display, like plasma, LCD, DLP, etc. If so, you also need to take the native resolution of the display into consideration. Your TV will scale any video to the resolution of the display, which will make PC desktop video look bad. You want to send it video in the native resolution of the display for best results.

Re:I'm more interested in a video card

[syncrotic]

You're using a CRT based rear projection set, and it overscans. It's a necessary design compromise in such a large tube to counteract the effect of nonlinear beam velocity at the tube edge. Your TV is being fed the proper signal, it just chops off a bit. DLP and LCD sets don't do this. Some tube-based sets rescale and digitally process everything that comes in through component input - slight quality loss, but no overscan.

As for only a few resolutions working... indeed, your TV is designed for a few fixed-sync modes, and pretty much nothing else.

Re:Is that as bad as ripping the tag of your jeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Not as bad as showing in court without wearing any pants.

Not a big deal

[geighaus]

I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force. It's not like we live in pre-Internet days after all..

Besides, look at DVD players. There are plenty of players on the market, which ignore regional settings despite DMCA and other bullshit regulations.

Re:Not a big deal

[Zorilla]

This brings up a question. Is the broadcast flag enforced in hardware or software? If it's the latter, this should prove easy to bypass if the capture is done on a computer.

Re:Not a big deal

[MaynardJanKeymeulen]

Well, here in Europe we use PAL instead of NTSC, so a European card wont do the job. Dont know about Asia though

Re:Not a big deal

[stry_cat]

I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force. It's not like we live in pre-Internet days after all

If we get to the 100% searching of cargo containers, you'll not be able to get any thing illegal from overseas. I'm just shocked that the Dems are the ones calling for this instead of the Reps.

Re:Not a big deal

[Zorilla]

Most TV tuners are multiformat. My BT878 can do NTSC, PAL, SECAM, you name it. This is probably also true for HD, as nothing needs to change in the DSP to adapt to a different format.

Re:Not a big deal

[Jucius Maximus]

Bow to your Canadian overlords and get one from North of the border when you come for cheap medicine, flu shots, abortions, cuban cigars and maple syrup! Bwahaha, eh!

Re:Not a big deal

[91degrees]

Most of Asia uses NTSC, but this isn't an NTSC card. It's an HDTV card. Yet another different standard. Of course, the chances of Europe adopting the same standard as the US is somewhat remote.

Re:Not a big deal

[smurf1974]

Digital content is not broadcast using ATSC in europe. We use the DVB standard.

They are both supersets of MPEG-2 but service information is encoded in a different way, and the tuner hardware is also different. And then there is the whole PAL/NTSC issue, but I'm not sure it applies to HDTV and almost all tv's nowdays can display both NTSC and PAL anyway.

Re:Not a big deal

[Zorilla]

Japan, Taiwan and Korea may use NTSC, but China, Hong Kong, Singapore, Thailand, Malaysia, India, Australia and others use PAL.

Re:Not a big deal

[xsecrets]

Well as we are talking HDTV that is ATSC not NTSC or PAL. Not sure what Europe is using for HDTV if they are using it at all.

Re:Not a big deal

[Danj2k]

I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from Europe [...] after the broadcast law steps in force.

There's HDTV in Europe? First time I've heard of it... as far as I'm aware it's still restricted to trials and specialist services like Euro1080 (which provides HDTV versions of sports stuff to venues). Sky Digital (the UK's main, and indeed only, satellite provider) has announced it will start doing HDTV in 2006, but until then you're SOL I think. Feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

Re:Not a big deal

[91degrees]

So it is. Just assumed it would be NTSC since all the dodgy DVDs my flatmate owns are NTSC.

Re:Not a big deal

[Sheetrock]

Probably hardware, possibly software. Looking over GNU Radio (which exists to do signal interpretation in software) I suspect someone could work their own decoder out of that with enough money, time and knowledge -- probably all out of proportion to what one of these pcHDTV cards costs.

I don't think it stops with the broadcast flag, though; once proprietary encryption gets into the mix, there's not going to be a gray area like this with hardware you pick up in the store. Why can't I get a decoder card that works with my digital cable service?

People who enjoy recording TV will have to stoop to the levels of satellite pirates tomorrow to enjoy the same level of use of their service they've got now. With probably the same legal/social connotations, as broadcasters are no doubt seeking to carve new revenue streams out of DRM TV (i.e. "Record to DVD now for only $2.50!").

Re:Not a big deal

[c]

> I am pretty sure you will be able to purchase an "illegal" card from
> Europe or Asia after the broadcast flag law steps in force

Agreed... Specifically, I wouldn't be too surprised to see card manufacturers implementing broadcast flag support in USA-only drivers... Drivers will be available to the rest of the world which might just happen to accidentally work in the USA.

c.

Re:Not a big deal

[DaHat]

You are making the mistake to believe that foreign hardware will work just as well as it would here.

With broadcasts, the US uses NTSC which is being replaced by ATSC which is carried on an 8VSB modulated signal. Only 2 places in the world currently use ATSC over 8VSB, the US and South Korea.

I have seen a few interesting SK products though, one that runs about 300, is an external tuner using USB 2.0, looks great... now I just need to convince my boss to let me have it (someone here while on business in SK found one and fell in love with it).

The European standard is COFDM for modulation and is radically different enough where it is extremely unlikely that you will find a demodulator capable of handling both, and even if there was such a part, the likelihood of it being used is low, after all, why adapt a multi national standard when you are only looking to target a single region?

Re:Not a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Who's to say an enterprising European wouldn't want to sell these anyway? Potential profit has a funny way of making things possible.

Re:Not a big deal

[AndrewRUK]

Most of Europe is using DVB-T. Your most promising non-US source of ATSC stuff is probably going to be Canada (Mexico, Argentina and South Korea are the only others planning to usa ATSC, according to that map.

Re:Not a big deal

[AndrewRUK]

*slaps self for not using preview* I'm not sure why the link vanished, but the map I was refering to is http://www.dvb.org/graphics/internal/Adoption-Map_ DVB-T.jpg.

Re:Not a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

I think your making the mistake and assuming that Europeans and Asian's won't want to market a product to the worlds biggest market (USA), nomatter what the standard is. There will be a demand past July 1, 2005 for these cards. The illegal part of it doesn't really matter if it's not illegal in the rest of the world.

Re:Not a big deal

[Nevo]

You are making the mistake to believe that manufacturers will limit distribution based on current broadcast technology. Manufacturers will sell a product wherever they see a profit to be made. If they see potential profit in selling broadcast-flag-ignoring, ATSC-capable cards through a European retailer who ships to the U.S., you can bet they'll do so.

Re:Not a big deal

[enrico_suave]

well, it's about the principle for one:

The FCC should not be the instrument for doing the content providers dirty work. Although reasonable controls in some instances make sense, the content providers have proven themselves to be anything but reasonable nor have any of the consumer's interest at heart (surprise surprise...)

2nd I'm sure they'll be circumvention software/hardware/hacks/tricks (remember the sharpie CD copy protection work around?) but utlizing those work arounds in the US could violate DMCA or DMCA-like provisions (despite the fact this sorta stuff should be legal in the first place!)

It goes back to principle... we should be able to do certain things with medium and content in our homes. DeCSS was borne from someone wanting to watch DVD's on linux and could not. Any parent (or person who is rough on their media) who has bought multiple copies of a given disney film after the kids have destroyed the medium the movie is stored on can atest to the need/desire to make backup. (does that make them the same as the bootlegger printing thousands of knock off DVD's in hongkong? Is this who the MPAA is trying to stop?)

DRM/aggressive access controls have gone (or are trending) too far towards the content creator's control...

e.

Re:Not a big deal

[theancient2]

If enough Canadians can convince their government to stand up to U.S. pressure to implement the broadcast flag, you may be able to import them from there. It can't hurt that ATI is a Canadian company.

There's an article about it in the Toronto Star: Mr. Minister, please protect the public interest.

Here are a few interesting parts:

[Industry Minister David] Emerson's strong backbone will be tested in the months ahead as he faces unrelenting U.S. pressure on two initiatives that would, if adopted, provide broadcasters with unprecedented control over television signals and severely curtail consumers' expectations with regard to their rights and personal privacy. ...

Given the controversy associated with the broadcast flag in the U.S., one would think that Canada would be wary about embarking on the same route. Accordingly, it came as a shock to many when an Industry Canada official recently indicated that Canada was likely to follow the U.S. lead by quickly implementing a similar system by July 2005. The official suggested that there was broadcaster support for the measure and that since the U.S. had adopted it, Canadians had little alternative but to follow suit.

While Canadian broadcasters may or may not support the broadcast flag (they have in fact been rather publicly silent on the matter), it is essential Canada craft its own policy by considering the privacy and copyright policies associated with the proposal.

Pre-judging the issue, as some in Minister Emerson's department appear to have done, is a dangerous course of action, that should be replaced immediately by a working group of all stakeholders, including the broader public interest, intent on studying the Canadian options. The suggestion Canada faces a Y2K-like deadline with respect to the broadcast flag appears as overblown as was the Y2K threat itself.

In light of the importance of the issues raised by the broadcast flag, it is heartening that Canada's new Industry Minister is a veteran of supporting Canadian interests in the face of U.S. pressure. When David Emerson salutes the flag on Canada Day 2005, one hopes that it is one with a maple leaf, not a broadcast flag emblazoned with red, white, and blue.

The Honourable David Emerson, Minister of Industry, can be contacted by email or by regular mail.

Re:Not a big deal

[kentborg]

> almost all tv's nowdays can display both
> NTSC and PAL anyway.

Oh, so wrong. In Europe (a place aware of the rest of the world) this may be so. But in the US (an ignorant, parochial, and isolationalist place that unfortunately still insists on throwing its international weight around) multi-standard TV sets mostly don't exist.

Don't underestimate how backward this Red State-laden country is.

-kb, the Kent who is proud to live in a Blue State.

Re:Not a big deal

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow, HDTV over USB 2.0? Could you post a link or a company name? I would love to buy one of those too.

Re:Not a big deal

[DaHat]

You can find product on the OnAirUSB-HDTV there and and buy from www.copperbox.com here

Re:Is that as bad as ripping the tag of your jeans

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless they're G.I. Pride jeans, then you're just providing a service.

Broadcase Flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't this an OTA HD tuner card? Will the broadcast flag even be used for this type of signal? I though it was reserved for Cable/Satellite and over the air signals were in the clear?

Re:Broadcase Flag?

[Anonymous Coward]

Will the broadcast flag even be used for this type of signal? I though it was reserved for Cable/Satellite and over the air signals were in the clear?

You do realize that "over the air" means broadcast, right? ;)

Re:Broadcase Flag?

[brandon]

Simply, Yes, it doesn't matter how you get it, including HD-DVD's, HD tapes, etc. They all have one of four types of copy protection like the copy protection bit.

--Brandon

Misquote

[dorward]

Shouldn't that be "last, best, hope"?

Re:Misquote

[Technician]

I don't think it's a misquote, I think it's a mis-statement.

When the over the air broadcasters wonder why nobody pays for commercial time slots, they will find out it's because nobody is tuning in. Then they will find out why nobody is tunning in.. Internet has replaced them..

After that, we may get another legal shot at time shift recording. To get viewers, they are going to have to change the content quality and make other concessions to attract viewers from the alternatives.

Right now, for over the air reception, it's just too expensive for too little. That's why I'm not an early adopter. The FCC has to step in and advertise for the broadcasters because they won't advertise a product they know won't sell. They are looking for a return on advertising investment. Over the air digital TV programming is not it.

HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Famatra]

According to the EFF's, article here, on how to build a PVR, there are no cards to get High Definition Cable or Satellite. Time is running out to get these features into a card before next summer ;).

Anyone know if they've made a card for HDTV cable or satellite?

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[swv3752]

The HD3000 does support HD cable but only unencrypted channels.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Anonymous Coward]

As they say, HD3000 is fully capable (techinally) to decode channels, just noone yet ,,guessed'' the firmware needed. I believe it will be just the matter of time until someone rev-engineer the tuner's EEPROM and write something to decrypt streams.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never ever see an HDTV card that works directly from a cable or satellite feed. Just like there are no cards which work directly with nonHDTV encrypted content. That won't ever happen so put that out of your mind.

What you can do and is feed from you Sat box's Svideo out to your PVR card which is what most people have to do. Then you have to use an IR blaster so your Tuner gets set to the right channel to record.

Personally IMHO unless you just get broadcast basic which is unencrypted just get a Tivo from your Sat company. Otherwise the whole tie up the TV because you have to tune to the same channel your recording thing blows.

Oh that or download everyhting from alt.binaries.multimedia which lets you A) not have to worry about buying any hardware B) most TV shows have the commercials editted out. I honestly don't even use my PVR anymore since I can download anything I need.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[dirty]

The HD3000 *will* supoort HD cable. Support is supposed to come in the next month or two.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, am still ignorant about video stuff. Do I need this card to be able to watch HDTV from DVDs played in my computer's DVD-drive?

Will this card let me watch and record regular (not necessarely HDTV format) cable broadcasts or do I need a PVR-350 as well?

Thanks for clearing that up.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[dunc78]

I'm not too knowledgeable about this stuff yet either, but I will try to help. Seeing as you are modded to 0 for some reason, I don't think many of the more knowledgeable will see the question. First off, most (all?) DVDs are not High Definition. A DVD doesn't not hold enough data for an entire HD movie. I think when they come out with these new DVD types like Blue Ray and I think there is another standard, they might have the storage capacity to put an HD movie onto a DVD. Second off, I would imagine that as long as the tuner card is recognized by the OS and software you are using, you should be able to tune and record regular programming. The PVR-350 does assist in recording because it has a hardware based MPEG encoder which takes the burden away from the CPU allowing one to use a less powerful computer. I didn't RTFA so I'm not sure if this has a hardware encoder (hardware to make the MPEG files).

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[amorsen]

Just like there are no cards which work directly with nonHDTV encrypted content. That won't ever happen so put that out of your mind.

Over here in old Europe we have plenty of cards which take a digital cable, satellite, or terrestrial feed and hand the decrypted (but not decoded) media stream to the computer.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Anonymous Coward]

Thank you for your answer! Here I was thinking all this time DVDs are already HD, just most people lacking the screen to actually view them that way (like sound...5.1 vs. normal stereo TV speakers). I'll try this card out...if nothing else to support them in principle of grassroots-developed hardware. Now if we could only come up with an "open-source" video card...:-)

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[mowler2]

Is it possible to get the raw stream from this card, and then decrypt in software?

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[radish]

Tell me again how you get HD from Svideo? Oh that's right, you can't. You can get Component capture cards, which work up to HDTV res. They are expensive right now, but hopefully will come down. The other option is direct capture from the cable box via firewire, I know some people can do that now but it's not available in many areas. Another option, which you consider impossible, is a card which can descramble the digital cable signal directly. It can be done, and in fact the cable companies will soon have to allow you to rent a little card with the decoding logic on board, which plugs into third party tuners (like those built into some TVs). All we need is for someone to make one of those to go in a PCI slot and we're sorted.

It'll be a while, and the broadcast flag will screw things up, but I think it will happen.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[hkrsld]

According to the specs the pcHDTV only supports 8VSB, i.e. US over-the-air modulation, so it won't work with cable or satellite (yet).

The only card I know of that supports HDTV on cable TV in the US with currently available drivers is the FusionHDTV3 by DVICO, with QAM (cable TV modulation) support in newer versions. The software from DVICO supports Windows only, with its own application for recording and time-shifting, When it doesn't crash it actually lets you record/timeshift unencrypted ComCast HDTV channels. There are efforts underway to support this card in Windows-MCE and Linux.

Re:HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?

[Wesley Felter]

the cable companies will soon have to allow you to rent a little card with the decoding logic on board, which plugs into third party tuners . All we need is for someone to make one of those to go in a PCI slot and we're sorted.

Too bad such a PCI card is essentially not allowed by the OpenCable licensing agreement.

How much does it cost?

[AtariAmarok]

Dang article is slashdotted. How much does this card cost?

Re:How much does it cost?

[Associate]

I think it may just be a bad URL.

Re:How much does it cost?

[Silwenae]

I looked at it before it got Slashdotted. I want to say $189, but it may have been $199. Either way, under $200.

Re:How much does it cost?

[AtariAmarok]

Thanks for the price! It must be "Generous Mod Monday". I was modded as insightful in the parent post for pointing out that the article was slashdotted.

Re:How much does it cost?

[jaxdahl]

It costs $189.89, but I think there are discount codes floating around that can get you $10 off .. anyone know of them? EFF-SPECIAL seems to have expired.

Re:How much does it cost?

[jaxdahl]

And shipping starts at $6.75 for USPS Priority, right now, orders will ship in about 1 week after the initial order.

I dunno ....

[YeeHaW_Jelte]

.. but how big is the chance that HDTV, when(if) it finally gets adopted, will be broadcasted on air-waves? I mean, here in the Netherlands, the television antenna's are being slowly dismantled because almost all homes either are connected to cable or can receive via a satellite dish.

Re:I dunno ....

[Cloud 9]

Every local television syndicate has to broadcast OTA in the USA.

Re:I dunno ....

[Zorilla]

Does anybody have any figures as to how much bandwidth can realistically be dedicated to HDTV signals? I'm guessing that (this is a US-centric comment) even if the bands were reworked, there's still only enough room for a few channels over the air. Gotta have cable or satellite.

Re:I dunno ....

[Anonymous Coward]

HDTV (ATSC) uses the same bandwidth (6 MHz) as the current analog broadcasting standard. Because it is less susceptible to interference than analog, the same number of stations can fit inside a smaller band. This will free up part of the UHF television band for other uses.

Re:I dunno ....

[xsecrets]

well in the US it's much more than a chance all stations had to start broadcasting some of their shows in HDTV a while back, and are supposed to be 100% before long so that the FCC can reclaim the old frequencies.

Re:I dunno ....

[Zorilla]

This will free up part of the UHF television band for other uses.

More channels? (Actually, that would be a bad thing if you live in the bible belt - Robert Tilton and Billy Graham 24-7)

Re:I dunno ....

[Yaa 101]

You are not toally right, Digitenne broadcasts digital television through air, for now only in the "Randstad" but later on everywhere.

Re:I dunno ....

[Roofus]

TV stations in the US are broadcasting their ditigal signal using 8VSB modulation in a 6MHz channel. That equates to a 19.39 Mb/s bitrate.

The stations have the option of how many programs they wish to broadcast within this space. They may show 4 standard definition digital channels at 4Mb/s each during the day, and at night switch to a High Def stream at 14Mb/s and an SD at 4Mb/s.

Stations could also have non-traditional channels (channels that most of the major networks have never owned), such as weather information, since they often use static images that don't take up much bandwidth.

Re:I dunno ....

[chez69]

yeah, it's a fucking shame when other people take advantage of freedom of speech.

Re:I dunno ....

[Zorilla]

Borderline criminal religious zealots are the status quo in states like Oklahoma. Freedom of speech is hardly in the minds of people when it seems Jesus TV is what is considered "favorable speech" amoung the public. It's the unfavorable stuff it's designed to protect, as we all know.

Re:I dunno ....

[ran-o-matic]

HD channels are 6MHz. This is the same as NTSC broadcast.

Last chance- my ass!

[quarrel]

Yeah 'cause there is no way that we won't see hacked firmware released for TV capture cards like we do for dvds.

I'm sure we also won't see someone using a felt tipped marker thanks to the wonderful people protecting the world with great laws like this..

Of course all the people using such things will be terrorists, so I guess that's ok. I hear there are other bits of Cuba to fill anyway.

Re:Last chance- my ass!

[Anita Coney]

There will always be opportunities to break the law. If a mere law could actually stop crime, we'd be crime free. In case you haven't noticed, we're not.

But whether you'll be able to break the law is not the point. The point is that it shouldn't be against the law in the first place.

Re:Last chance- my ass!

[ukyoCE]

This could easily be the last chance. This is nothing at all like the felt-tipped-marker scheme - that was a company trying to illicitly install software on people's computers. More like spyware than the broadcast flag. The thing with the broadcast flag is that, like DVD encryption, the broadcast flag is currently under the force of LAW.

The MPAA could easily start suing any company that makes devices that circumvent the broadcast flag. They could do the same thing with DVD players that circumvent region locking and macrovision. I'm not even sure why they haven't. Even if a "special code" gets "leaked" they can still hold the manufacturer responsible for it. At this point it's completely up to the MPAA whether you ever get to record something again. You can be optimistic that they'll let a lot of crap slide by them...but don't bitch when they actually enforce the laws they paid good money to pass.

Typo in the article

[raxxerax]

From TFA:

The reason for the ruling [requiring the broadcast flag]: If TV broadcasters start sending movies such as Finding Nemo over the air in high definition, it will be too easy for any techie to set up a PC that automatically uploads perfect copies to the Net.

Won't that happen anyway?

Probably.

The last line should read "Definitely."

Re:Typo in the article

[Jucius Maximus]

There was probably a scramble like this back when DVD-ROMs were changing from RPC1 (region free in the hardware, only software region-enforced) to RPC2 (regions enforced in the hardware.)

Even after the broadcast flag is enforced, I'm sure there will be firmware hacks or whatnot available to ignore the broadcast flag. Really, for almost all DVD-ROM/R/Rw hardware out there, you can just patch the firmware and it's totally RPC1.

Re:Typo in the article

[Zorilla]

Nah, the internet is filled to the brin with people who think DVD Shrink can make Finding Nemo (for example) fit onto a 4.7 GB disc without losing any quality. It's going to be a while.

Re:Is that as bad as ripping the tag of your jeans

[Anonymous Coward]

*glug* *glug* *glug*

(The sound of a once-funny joke sinking in mud)

last, best chance?

[syrinje]

Presumptious that is! Next month may a better card be released. Bringing better technology every day is. But article does some wisdom contain - error it is till last minute to wait !!

Spelling!

[tod_miller]

[snip]?num=100&hl=en&q=pc+to+hdtv+converter&spell= 1

Oh a telling sign, I bet your wrote convertor! Or was it a typo?

Bring up an interesting point about how secret info can be carried across out everyday lives.

Lucky it didn't say anything else!

Another way of looking at it...

[fuzzykitty]

Even Hitler was popular. It just shows how gullible the American people are.

No Windows support!

[RealProgrammer]

Requirements

• IntelR PentiumR 1200Mhz or higher
• Linux Red Hat Linux 9.0 Fedora core 1 and 2
• Sound card.
• 256 MB RAM or higher
• CD ROM Drive
• One available PCI slot
• Currently the HD-3000 is NOT supported in Windows 98, Windows 2000 or Windows XP however Windows drivers are include for those wishing to experiment with the card in Microsoft Windows.

That last line is a remarkable reversal from the usual state of affairs. Normally announcements don't mention Linux compatibility (but it's available at your own risk if you snag some source from their web site).

That alone makes me want one.

Re:No Windows support!

[Snaller]

This alone makes it a commercial failure now already.

Re:No Windows support!

[Jeff DeMaagd]

IIRC, they've sold out several times, but they aren't selling it outside their site that I have seen.

The only reason it is a linux-only card is that a group of linux people decided to make a card for their operating system, it is not necessarily a reversal of fortune, I won't buy a Linux-only card if I can avoid it because Linux does not support any hardware video deinterlacers that I am aware about.

Re:No Windows support!

[Snaller]

Just seemed odd to me that they wouldn't support Windows, seemed like spite. But if they made it for their own system first, i suppose its natural they haven't gotten around to Windows.

Re:No Windows support!

[bit01]

Since you do not know what their business goals are that sentence is meaningless.

---

Company scammers who do paid-for posts on weblogs without attribution (i.e. This is a paid advertisement) are criminals and should do jail time for fraud.

Re:No Windows support!

[bit01]

Just seemed odd to me that they wouldn't support Windows,

There are many reasons they might not want to support windows:

• They don't want to waste time on proprietary software crap like unfixable bugs and encoders/decoders with crap licenses.
• They don't want to dilute the effectiveness of their development team.
• Their technical expertise is primarily in Linux.
• Maybe they have lots of manhours available and not much money and don't want to waste the money on proprietary (and probably buggy and unfixable) software libraries and development systems.
• They are a small organisation that cannot compete directly with the bigger players in the windows world, particularly with all the marketing dross in that space where the technically best product often does not do well.
• They'd like to make the world a better place and not contribute to the M$ $35,000,000,000/year lockin.
• They don't want their business so beholden to other businesses due to software dependencies and patent/copyright lockin.
• This commercial release is a side-effect of a research project and they don't want to invest much more effort in it.
• etc.

You are being a little blinkered when you say not supporting windows might be "spite" or because "they haven't gotten around to Windows".

---

Company scammers who do paid-for posts on weblogs without attribution (i.e. This is a paid advertisement) are criminals and should do jail time for fraud.

Re:No Windows support!

[Snaller]

No. Could be their goal is to go bankrupt, but that is not a commercial success.

Re:No Windows support!

[Snaller]

You are being a little blinkered

Lol and you are not with your list? Hehe.

Drivers are a bit rocky

[wowbagger]

The drivers are a bit rocky - unfortunately they are not in the mainline kernel, and if you are running a newer kernel getting the patches to apply is a bit tricky.

Also, the version of xine they have modified to support tuning and selecting the video streams on a multi-stream HD transmission is OLD - 0.7. Again, they have not moved the support into the main line Xine.

Alsa (sic), under 2.6.x and ALSA sound you cannot get audio for normal TV as the modified video driver claims the resources the ALSA sound driver needs. Yes, the primary focus of the card is HDTV not NTSC, but still, IMHO they should fix that.

Lastly, you had DAMN WELL have a meaty machine if you plan on watching 1080i streams - my Athlon-xp 3000 with an ATI 7500 AIW, with everything tweaked in as much as I can, needs about 120% CPU to watch a 1080I stream. IF you have an nVidia card, IF you have the modified version of Xine with XvMC support THEN you can lower the bar a bit, but otherwise, no.

I'd like to see them make the effort to get all the software into the main line codebases - I believe the hold-up is the issue of possibly supporting the Linux DVB API rather than bodging the ATSC support into V4L2.

Re:Drivers are a bit rocky

[brandon]

I run 3 pcHDTV cards on a amd 2600 (333fsb) and an nvidia 5200. Things work fine, but without the fx5200 that supports XvMC there's no chance of running 1080i and de-interlacing it in realtime on anything sub 2.8Ghz P4 with HT. All AMD's run slower, be it their slower FPU (by about 30%) or their lower speed BUS. I personally max out the BUS on my motherboard whenever I try to watch a show and record more than 2 at once. I'm not going to start another CPU war, but the facts are that Intels do run much more smoothly (video and all) than AMD's do, even 64 bit AMD's. If you do have problems on a 3k AMD, get an NVidia card that supports all XvMC optimization and you'll be happy.

--Brandon

Re:Drivers are a bit rocky

[Anonymous Coward]

something is wrong, i have an nforce2-based athlon XP3000 and if nothing else is going on i can watch 1080i (software deinterlaced) in myth (0.15) and everything works fine.

720p is much less demanding.

if there is anything else going on in the background, 1080i deint falls behind and the picture pauses and restarts, but if the machine is otherwise quiet, no proble.

Re:Drivers are a bit rocky

[Anonymous Coward]

"[A] bit rocky" is an understatement. The HD-2000 has been around for years, and the drivers and utilities are panic-city on anything newer than a 2.4.17 or so kernel.

I finally gave up, pulled my HD-2000 out and put the WinTV/PCI back in.

Just send the $189.99 to the EFF. You'll have a better chance of enjoying broadcast-flag-free HDTV that way, IMHO.

Re:Drivers are a bit rocky

[Phishcast]

This reminds me of the days when I couldn't play MP3s without using downmix mode. It seemed like it was going to take forever to get an affordable CPU that could decode MP3s in realtime.

"If you do have problems on a 3k AMD, get an NVidia card that supports all XvMC optimization"

This reminds me of hardware MPEG decoders people used to need. It will be done in software, all in good time...

Re:Drivers are a bit rocky

[Anonymous Coward]

So is Linux ready for the desk top yet ? 2004 was the year of Linux on the desktop right ?

Re:Drivers are a bit rocky

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the info.
Anyway if they sell many cards do not be worry userbase and original developers will improve drivers and they will be in mainaly in a couple months.

My Bday Present

[SigTom]

I get my pcHDTV3000 sometime tomorrow afternoon. Ordered it a few weeks back and was surprised that they were shipping it out early (on Friday last week). Its a nice byproduct that its my bday on the 9th as well. Now to get it and the new FX5700 card to work in MythTV together and find a decent indoor antenna (hate living in an apt sometimes).

Re:Why? (OffTopic, I know)

[Jaruzel]

EvilAlien - I did your sig :)

Btw, Windows Perl needs double quotes.

OT: Political Rant

[phurley]

To claim that there is no difference between Republicans and Democrats is to do a huge disservice to both parties.

I agree both parties would consider themselves different. And to some extent I would agree. I believe that what most people who state that the parties are too similar are concentrating on different issues. In particular both parties are beholden to the rich and powerful. People in office (generally) have one primary goal -- getting re-elected. With that as your primary motivation you are going to behave in a certain manner -- play the game, increase your influence, gather large benefactors, etc. It is these primary activities that both parties share.

Re:OT: Political Rant

[Shakrai]

in office (generally) have one primary goal -- getting re-elected [snipped] With that as your primary motivation you are going to behave in a certain manner -- play the game, increase your influence, gather large benefactors, etc. It is these primary activities that both parties share.

And a third-party candidate isn't going to do exactly the same thing to get re-elected? What solution to this problem would you purpose? You can't put term limits on Congresscritters without amending the constitution -- and that's not going to happen anytime soon. Besides there are just as many arguments against term limits as for them. Just ask anybody that wanted Giuliani to stay on after 9/11.

Where are the FreeBSD drivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be nice if they supported open source.

Re:Where are the FreeBSD drivers?

[JustNiz]

>It would be nice if they supported open source.

What do you think Linux is, dork?

Re:Where are the FreeBSD drivers?

[Anonymous Coward]

And when did FreeBSD stop being 'Open Source'?

Civil liberties

[Antony-Kyre]

What do the businesses, which will be required to make this change, think of this? Do they like Big Brother stepping in?

I don't like the concept of a big government. The concept of stealing HD programming needs to be dealt with another way entirely.

Re:Civil liberties

[mowler2]

The problem is not a big government. The problem is bad democracy. The government is supposed to represent the will of the majority - not the rich elite (or "base") ; as is the current situation in USA.

Re:Civil liberties

[Antony-Kyre]

Right now it's difficult for the majority to represent themselves. The majority lacks the lobbyists necessary.

One suggestion is to have a Citizen's Government on the Net, set up in such a way people (registered voters) participate anonymously, and vote among themselves initiatives to be presented to Congress.

The most imporant thing is this. People need to start speaking out against stupid stuff like this, but the media is never going to report it. The media might just be too scared to report on controversial issues.

Re:Civil liberties

[tehdaemon]

"The problem is bad democracy."

Not quite, We do not have a 'bad' democracy. The problem is that democracy is a bad form of government. Not as bad as a dictatorship, and somewhat better than communism. About on par with monarchy.

People seem to forget history. Even the first democracy did not last long, less than 100 years. (Athens)

This is plain stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

If someone doesn't want their work recorded....don't "broadcast" it.

Damn, why does America let it's elected officials stomp all over everything.

Re:This is plain stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

vDamn, why does America let it's elected officials stomp all over everything.

Because over half of us are retarded.

Re:This is plain stupid

[purplerhino]

However, the FCC, the one's doing the stomping in this case, is a non-elected regulatory body, so they're even less accountable... So our elected officials aren't really stomping in this case, but they aren't really doing anything to help yet either :/

Re:This is plain stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey, half of us are of below average intelligence, how crazy is that?

No windows support?

[homebrewmike]

Now this is a refreshing surprise - from the Web Site:

"Currently the HD-3000 is NOT supported in Windows 98T, Windows 2000T or Windows XPT however Windows drivers are include for those wishing to experiment with the card in Microsoft Windows."

Is NOT SUPPORTED under Windows? Is that a hardware first?

Re:No windows support?

[stratjakt]

I read that as "we havent even really tested this fucking thing yet and it probably works for shit".

I mean really, linux support is great, but when you advertise that you have no support for the OS that's in 99% of media PCs out there, it doesn't work for your image.

Re:No windows support?

[shumacher]

Is NOT SUPPORTED under Windows? Is that a hardware first?

Not a first, but a rarity for x86 compatible hardware post-Win95.

Re:No windows support?

[JustNiz]

>> mean really, linux support is great,

yes it is.

>> no support for the OS that's in 99% of media PCs ..it doesn't work for your image.

But those media PC's are functionally crippled when compared to MythTV. If you want the most functionality, then go Linux.

Therefore I don't give a toss about Microsoft support, because I wouldn't use it even if it had.

I find it refreshing that they've turned their back on M$ as it means that the developers won't compromise their time and design by making a card that has to also be also windows compatable.

Apart from all the M$ bullshit logo/certification crap, they won't waste man-years of effort learning how to beat the utter shit that is the Microsoft Windows Driver Model just to get a basic working driver.

Re:No windows support?

[bheerssen]

Phfft! This is a linux company making hardware for linux. They are specifically targeting a niche market, and that's fine and dandy. If you want a tuner card for Windows, go pick up an ATI All-In-Wonder.

Re:No windows support?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've heard that Apple hasn't bothered with that for a while.

Re:It can

[Anonymous Coward]

DVD Shrink can make almost any DVD fit onto a 4.7GB disk without losing any quality. Of course, you lose all the extras and you can only keep one soundtrack, but I have done it many times.

Not illegal to own

[Pedrito]

Just to clear this up a bit, because the article is misleading and I didn't see any posts clarifying this. It will not be illegal to own or possess these cards (HDTV receivers that ignore the broadcast flag). It will simply be illegal to sell them in the U.S.

I suggest people stock up on them. I don't even have an HDTV at this point, but I'm going to grab a card just so I'm covered...

Re:Not illegal to own

[giantsfan89]

It will simply be illegal to sell them in the U.S.

Wrong.

If you read the article, it will be illegal to import or manufacture them after this date. Check ebay after the date for a tuner 2x normal price. =)

Veto would have been overriden

[tepples]

Who signed the DMCA again? Oh yes, it was William Jefferson Clinton.

I'm tired of hearing this. President Clinton could not have stopped the DMCA or the Bono Act, as the DMCA and the Bono Act were passed in both houses by voice vote. The Constitution specifies that it takes 80 percent assent to have a voice vote go through, and it takes only 67 percent assent to override a Presidential veto.

Re:Veto would have been overriden

[Anonymous Coward]

And rather than take a principled stand and let the veto be overridden, he went ahead and signed it, indicating his assent. He made no effort to stop the law from passing: he didn't use the power of his party, he didn't speak to Congress, he didn't even take the trouble to make a symbolic gesture of opposition using the veto. Why? Because he, like the great majority you cite, sold us down the river willingly.

Citing a huge majority that could override a veto and trying to imply that Clinton didn't want those laws is the sort of revisionist history that would make even Orwell blush.

Unfortunate

[Anonymous Coward]

I have the original card and these guys have been total slcakers when it comes to getting the thing working correctly. I would highly recommend staying away from this card.

PCI Express version?

[huge colin]

My next upgrade is definitely going to involve running a PCI-Express AMD64 platform. Is there a PCI-E HDTV card on the horizon? Are motherboard designers planning on including legacy PCI support during the transition?

--Colin

Re:PCI Express version?

[amorsen]

How long did it take from the PCI bus appeared till it became common to see motherboards without ISA slots? - PCI will be with us in 2010.

Re:PCI Express version?

[brandon]

I highly doubt we will see a PCI-E HDTV card before July 1st 2005. If HDTV tuners can somehow still be made after that date, I don't see a PCI-E card becoming common until 2007. TV Stations who will buy "DRM computers" to handle HDTV related things would be the first to get them I'm sure too. That's my personal guess.

--Brandon

Obvious

[Bill, Shooter of Bul]

If you don't agree with half of the positions of either party then you can understand how someone could say " they are just as bad" as each other. As another poster pointed out they didn't say they weren't different, just that one wasn't any better than the other.

Re:Oh god

[Overzeetop]

Good, will you ask him to look into this whole flag mess and fix it. He can start by firing Powell's kid, right after gives the old man his walking papers.

They won't be able to sell any now!

[Anonymous Coward]

Being that the site is slashdot'd. Come on people, bugger off for a bit.

Hell he could have even just have ignored it

[glrotate]

and it would have become law. By signing it, he gave his support.

Does it work with Comcast??

[amigabill]

I don't know enough about QAMs and VSBs and stuff to know if it will work with Comcast's cable service. I've heard something about QAM-8 and QAM-256, or perhas those are VSB numbers I'm getting things confused with. I don't see a 256 number in their features on the web page for anything... Can this thing work with Comcast's digital standard and HDTV service??

Re:Does it work with Comcast??

[stratjakt]

No.. yes.. maybe..

This is all a tempest in a teapot. DTV will be stillborn, well, born with Down's syndrome at least.

It's already a clusterfuck. Even geeks like us don't know what the hell is going on. DirecTV uses a different format than Comcast, who uses a different format than OtherCableCo, and none of them use the same formats as broadcast TV because of their encryption or whatever.

The broadcast flag issue is largely a tempest in a teapot. Hardly anyone will be watching broadcast DTV. It won't be up to Hollywood or the FCC to decide what you can record or not, it'll be up to Comcast or DirecTV, because you can only use their tuner/PVR to recieve or record the shows. IIRC, they have composite outputs to your TV, so you can capture on a VCR or what have you, but only at regular analog resolutions.

Show of hands.. Who watches broadcast TV now? The FCC has no say over cable or satellite (yet).

My prediction is: Comcast and DirecTV et al continue their little feature war, and start offering digital outputs, firewire or whatever, and they will slowly loosen restrictions on what you can or cannot record (Pay per views, etc).

As far as broadcast TV goes, if the local networks affiliates (ABC, CBS, NBC, Fox) start flipping this flag on, it'll just be another nail in their coffin. It'll never get used, or rather used once or twice, and then never used again as thousands write in to bitch that they couldnt tape the World Series, or whatever.

Short summary, don't waste your money on this because of some slashbot paranoia. This is really the worst written slashvertisement I've seen.

Re:Does it work with Comcast??

[Suidae]

This is the only post so far that mentions firewire, so I'll attach my question here.

My HDDVR from Cox (one of the Motorola boxes) has DVI and FireWire outputs for HDTV channels. I don't know much about FireWire, but it seems like if this is available it shouldn't be that big of a problem to capture it to a computer for viewing (not just playback to a TV, for which applications are already available, according to a previous Slashdot story).

Cox already denies me the ability to use the DVR with PPV movies, so I'm mildly concerned about the broadcast flag. I'm hoping from some kind of FireWire-reading, broadcast-flag-ignoring PC-based DVR that I don't have to buy an expansion card for (I'd prefer to just use whatever cable box my provider supplies).

Re:Does it work with Comcast??

[stratjakt]

Like I said, Broadcast Flag has nothing to do with Comcast or Cox or any other cable provider. The FCC can only make rules for over the air public broadcasts, for now at least.

Comcast, Cox, et al play by their own rules. They decide what you can do or cant do, and you decide whether or not you want their service.

If they don't want you recording anything because they want to push on-demand viewing down your throat, you won't be recording anything.

If they only want to offer HBO and PPV to digital subscribers, because they want people like me to pay to lease a tuner box for every TV in their house, rather than accomplishing the same thing with a 2 dollar coax splitter, then guess what, people like me don't get HBO or PPVs.

Re:Does it work with Comcast??

[Anonymous Coward]

There are two basic standards for digital cable...
dvb-c and OpenCable. DVB-C is common in Europe, while OpenCable is common in the US. Comcast is using OpenCable. You may have heard/read/seen that some of the newest TVs have a OpenCable tuner built in that can accept a smartcard (that would be issued by your CableCo) to allow you to view encrypted digital conten on you new TV without renting a digital tuner from the CableCo. Thus far, I have not seen/heard anything about a PC card that will allow reception/decoding of the OpenCable standard. DVB-C cards are available if you live in Europe. Likewise DVB-S cards are available, but the DirecTV content is encrypted, so you are unable to view the content. If you could figure out how to decrypt the DVB-S stream, however, it would be no problem.

Re:Does it work with Comcast??

[shades6666]

No it won't.
The FAQ on their site sums it up nicely:

Is QAM supported?
No, We currently do not have QAM support.

Will the HD-2000 card work with cable TV?
No, The card is only for terrestrial broadcasts.
Cable and Satellite reception are not supported.

Also, as hkrsld posted elsewhere in this discussion the only cable ready HDTV card out there is the FusionHDTV3 by DVICO. Unfortunately it doesn't support encrypted channels.

Site is down...

[PrimeWaveZ]

So I can't tell. But does anyone know if it has drivers for OS X? I'd hate to have to load Yellow Dog on my G4 tower just to watch HDTV.

Re:Site is down...

[brandon]

There are no drivers for OS X, but the drivers are OS'd so if someone wants to take the time to hack them, you have everything you need to do so. Just go to the pchdtv.com site and download the driver source.

--Brandon

Will NOT be "illegal" to own July 1, 2005

[daveschroeder]

ALL equipment sold before this date in the US that does not respect the Broadcast Flag will be grandfathered in. From http://eff.org/broadcastflag/:

The good news is this mandate doesn't take effect for another year. We have until July 1, 2005, to buy, build, and sell fully-capable, non-flag-compliant HDTV receivers. Any receivers built now will "remain functional under a flag regime, allowing consumers to continue their use without the need for new or additional equipment." [PDF] Any devices made this year can be re-sold in the future.

But why?

[jandersen]

I mean why would anyone want to own a HDTV not to mention an card to stick into a PC? TV is bad enough at the current low resolution, I certainly don't want to make it worse by seeing it any clearlier.

Seriously, though - I feel I have seen far more than enough crappy TV in my life. Sometimes I watch the news - BBC - and sometimes, say once a month, there is a program that is actually worth your time, that gives you factual information without a load of stupid fade in/out, 'cool' soundtrack and other rubbish. The rest of the time it's quizzes, 'reality' tv, sport and worst of all: garden programs, house makeovers and celebrity chefs, none of whom have anything in the direction of taste or even common sense.

When (if) the day comes when you have to have digital and HDTV, I'll simply go without. And perhaps go to the cinema once every other year, when a film is released that is worth my time.

Re:But why?

[JustNiz]

...so you can use MythTV to timeskip all the crap.

Re:But why?

[Anonymous Coward]

funny, i have been doing this for the past 4 months (kinda sucks, but is better in the long run) lightning blew my tv and a couple of other devices. I have not replaced it, i do want a HDTV (just to watch football) But I will NEVER buy a HDTV if the broadcast flag is going to be used. I just will download the tv shows of torrent sites, and keep doing what I have been doing. enjoying my extra time! I will buy two to three of these cards just to have them. I always wanted to build a mythtv box.

Re:But why?

[liquidsin]

You may be shocked to learn this, but there are actually people in the world who have tastes in entertainment that vastly differ from yours. Not only do they like television, but I bet some of them don't care what OS their computer runs, and maybe a few of them even leave their parents basements to co-mingle with members of the opposite sex!

Re:But why?

[jandersen]

"Eat shit; 50 million flies can't be wrong." - if you get my drift.

Plus, I would say that the kind of people who look at eg. 'reality' tv are the ones that ought to get out there in the big room with the blue ceiling instead of wasting their time and other resources on filter feeding through the silly natterings and intrigues of celebrities whose only distinguishing quality seems to be that they are willing to jerk off on tv.

NTSC, PAL, SECAM

[Abreu]

Who uses SECAM, then?

Re:NTSC, PAL, SECAM

[Zorilla]

Mainly France, but I'm looking at this link and am seeing that most of Africa as well as countries south of Russia also use SECAM. As far as it relates to Asia, I'm seeing that North Korea also uses it alongside PAL (must be an eastern-bloc thing, as South Korea is NTSC).

Plans for version with smartcard slot??

[amigabill]

Anyone heard of any plans for a version of this (or any other card for that matter) that can take a smartcard and show the encrypted channels?? I'd love to see such a thing before the broadcast flag requirement day comes upon us.

Or perhaps such a card with an easily hackable characteristic, such as removing a jumper or cutting a trace to disable the broadcast flag... So it can be sold with broadcast flag honoring enabled but have it reasonably easily undone with a cut and a pullup/down resistor to the appropriate chip's appropriate input or something like that... Could not enabled hardware disallow an open-source driver to remove the flag via software, but when hacked in such a way then allow any driver to run whether the driver honors the flag or not?

Would a free open-sourced driver fall under the flag restrictions after the requirement date, as if it's free it doesn't need to be "sold"?

I think it's rediculous to feel the need to ask such questions, but I also think it's rediculous that these guys would possibly prevent me from watching some show or movie if I'm stuck at work or onthe side of a road with a flat tire or whatever and cannot be in front of my TV at broadcast time, when I've already paid my cable bill for that month or already paid for that pay-per-view event or whatever...

Re:Plans for version with smartcard slot??

[WaterDamage]

Or perhaps such a card with an easily hackable characteristic, such as removing a jumper or cutting a trace to disable the broadcast flag... So it can be sold with broadcast flag honoring enabled but have it reasonably easily undone with a cut and a pullup/down resistor to the appropriate chip's appropriate input or something like that... Could not enabled hardware disallow an open-source driver to remove the flag via software, but when hacked in such a way then allow any driver to run whether the driver honors the flag or not?

Ahhhhh....this reminds me of those good old days of analog hacking. I remember back in the scanner days, there were quite a few scanners where you could easily hack by removing a diode and magically unlock quite a few interesting frequencies that covered bands like cellular bands, and misc government freqs.

Unfortunately, "The Peoples Republic of Bush" (our new government) is well aware of such tactics. It's also illegal to sell such easily modifiable devices since the introduction of a law back in 1994, which prohibited manufactures from creating easily hackable hardware. This was only applicable to hardware that had capabilities of accessing banned/illegal content that the gov considered sensitive. I consider the PC the ultimate hacking device with access to senstive info, why haven't they banned it yet? ;-)

Should the "Peoples Republic of Bush " discover that a manufacturer has bundled a nice easter-egg with their device that allows access to banned/illegal material, they're not going to like it when they get F'd by a D*** big enough for an elephant.

Sig of the day: Crime does not pay -nearly- as well as politics...

Re:Plans for version with smartcard slot??

[Wesley Felter]

Anyone heard of any plans for a version of this (or any other card for that matter) that can take a smartcard and show the encrypted channels??

Broadcast TV has no encrypted channels. The DRM requirements on encrypted cable are so strict that the stream isn't allowed to even go near a PC, so you can give up on that.

Or perhaps such a card with an easily hackable characteristic, such as removing a jumper or cutting a trace to disable the broadcast flag...

This is explicitly illegal. Save us all some trouble and turn yourself in to the authorities now. :-)

Would a free open-sourced driver fall under the flag restrictions after the requirement date, as if it's free it doesn't need to be "sold"?

It's illegal to distribute a non-flag-checking tuner at all.

PVRs will still exist, but you just won't be able to get video out of the PVR easily.

HDTV Cable and Satellite still a no go?-Radio.

[Anonymous Coward]

How about a pcHDTV card with built-in Sirus reciever? Sort of the modern version of the old TV Tuner/Radio cards.

BTW Will HDTV carry data services?

What this REALLY needs

[Anonymous Coward]

Is CableCARD support.

That way, I can have it receive HBO, Showtime, encrypted HD, so on and so forth.

Civil liberties-Scrambled eggs.

[Anonymous Coward]

"I don't like the concept of a big government. The concept of stealing HD programming needs to be dealt with another way entirely."

Yeah! Encryption. Of course, failing that, there's the two alternatives. A lesser quality signal, and simply not broadcasting.

other cards available too

[jmb295]

There are two other cars that are available with stable windows drivers: MyHD & Fusion. MyHD does all of the processing in hardware, and can output component video/vga/or dvi directly to the tv without help from a video card. The Fusion card does the processing in software and uses the video card to output to the tv.

Re:other cards available too

[jpetts]

Is it known whether these cards ignore the broadcast bit?

Re:other cards available too

[Andy Dodd]

I believe they do.

I have the MyHD MDP-100 (their first-gen card), and it now sits on a shelf. Marginal reception + no Linux support = shelved. :(

The 120 has a more sensitive tuner apparently. Still no Linux support. Screw you Teralogic.

CSI at 1080i was absolutely amazing when it worked though...

Freedom Overkill

[Doc Ruby]

What happens when the broadcasters change the data format they broadcast, to get everyone to upgrade ($) and to shake these legacy freedom devices? This thing needs open, pluggable firmware.

Where are the plans to this video card?

[El Camino SS]

"The tighter you squeeze, the more video signals will slip through your fingers."
"Where are these cards manufactured?"
"Somewhere in Europe, maybe in Algeria, someplace like that."
"See, I told you they could be reasonable."
"Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
"No. You cannot! They are peaceful, they have no malice.. they only want to record television to see it later! You cannot disrupt their..."
"We are onto their little KaZaA games."
"You cannot!"
"Then tell me another target, a military target!"
"Sealand. They make the cards on, Sealand."
"Thank you. Continue targeting the Korean card manufacturers."
"I just, wait!"
"Sealand is too sparsely populated to manufacture cards of that sophistication.You may target when ready."
"Nooooooo!" /I felt a disturbance as though a million cable subscribers cried out in agony, and then suddenly, snow.

We should convince the company to...

[Anonymous Coward]

on the day before it becomes illegal, release all the docs/info/schematics on the pcHDTV card under an Open Source license. Or in other words, screw over the Feds.

Out of Stock

[Anonymous Coward]

The web page loaded for me after multiple attempts. I then clicked on "add to cart" for the item and got a message that it is out of stock.

Funny thing about all of this...

[El Camino SS]

This will be the death of the television industry in the USA.

People won't want to go back on features.

It's like selling me a BMW without power windows. The dumbest idea ever.

Tell these nimrods will watch more of their precious shows and commercials when they can GET WHAT THEY WANT WHEN THEY WANT IT.

People will just go to the 'net when the TV was designed not to work. Once again, I would just like to reiterate what happens when people ban things, the resistance just becomes more organized and stronger.

If you think banning something the public wants, let me point to a little time in American history called prohibition. Americans are hooked on television. There will be riots in the streets when the television industry realized they fucked up, and everyone leaves them en masse.

When they stare at the numbers and realize that they just alienated a good 30% of their audience that uses videotape and PVRs all the time just to catch TV in their busy lives, they are going to backpedal on this stuff so fast it is insane when they realize that no one in their target demographic of rich and motivated people will sit down and watch their TV on their schedule. Just be patient. It will blow up in their face.

Currently, HD is burning. The public has not adopted it. Sure, they are buying a lot of them at Circuit City, when they hit the switch to go to HD only, the public is going to walk away from TV, and they are going to burn alive when everyone decides that playing outside with the kids is more fun.

Linux first?

[Anonymous Coward]

One available PCI slot Currently the HD-3000 is NOT supported in Windows 98T, Windows 2000T or Windows XPT however Windows drivers are include for those wishing to experiment with the card in Microsoft Windows.

WOW, how is this true? is this a paradox? Linux drivers first then windows?

Re:Linux first?

[Anonymous Coward]

If so, expect them to be out of buisness by next week :)

Component video capture

[pergamon]

I've looked and looked and not been able to find a reasonable ( $2000 ) way to get component (analog HDTV) video into a computer. This seems like as good a thread as any to ask if anyone knows of a way...

Re:Component video capture

[brandon]

Sorry, but unless you can fork out the $15k+ that TV stations do for a hardware encoder for such high resolution, it's not here. You need the equiv of a 13Ghz system to do this in realtime. Give it 3-5 years and we may see something (either CPU or hardware encoders), but not yet.

--Brandon

Re:Component video capture

[pergamon]

Like I (intended to have) said, I've seen boxes that do this in the ~$2k range that can do this, but I could have been wrong.

There's got to be a way to do this -- I mean, for analog VGA inputs on LCD screens, don't they have to convert that analog signal (which is pretty high resolution/bandwidth) into a digital frame to display on the LCD?

Re:Component video capture

[brandon]

Nope. The display device gets what can be considered raw data (Be it Digital or analog) and the display device displays based on that data. It does not have encode or decode the raw data.

Raw 1080i HDTV data is about 200Mb/s.

HDTV cameras rarely have a built in encoder (due to cost), but rather capture the raw image data and then they take it back to the studio and hook it to a computer that they pop the cameras tape into and use the multi $k encoders to create an HDTV res MPEG-2 video and audio stream.

--Brandon

Re:Component video capture

[pergamon]

Ahh, see, I'm not interested in encoding in realtime, I just want the raw video (which is all the device listed in this story does anyway).

Basically all I need is something that does the A->D conversion and just writes frames into a kind of reverse framebuffer that can be read over PCI. Maybe not exactly that (don't know if it would be able to be read fast enough over PCI or even PCI Express), but that would be a good start.

Re:Component video capture

[salsbst]

Raw HD is too much for the PCI bus to handle. You need to get it encoded and lossy-compressed before it hits the PCI bus... which effectively means that you need to do it in real time.

Re:Component video capture

[ikekrull]

Find an SGI Octane with an SDI/HDTV I/O board and a large, fast disk array and you can probably do this in reasonably straightforward fashion.

The Octanes have massive bandwidth and don't suffer from the PCI bottleneck with their video I/O hardware modules.

Octanes are pretty cheap these days on EBay, the HDTV I/O hardware probably won't be, but you never know what kind of deals you can turn up.

Now the next question is why you would want to do this? Uncompressed HDTV will fill up over 200GB/hour, better to save the compressed MPEG-2 stream and decompress only when you want to view/transcode it.

Cablecard

[tknn]

I want to buy a card without broadcast flag, but I really want it to have CableCard capability as well....

Who are the REAL customers here?!!!

[Thud457]

"People won't want to go back on features."

But some companies are dumb enough to try it:

Apple's breaking of the iPod

TiVo "upgrade" removes features

Funny thing about all of this...Hooch.

[Anonymous Coward]

" If you think banning something the public wants, let me point to a little time in American history called prohibition. Americans are hooked on television. There will be riots in the streets when the television industry realized they fucked up, and everyone leaves them en masse." [Emphasis mine]

For what? At least with alcohol, anyone and their mother could produce the stuff.

Software solution

[PerlMonkey]

Is there any way that this can be done with a software encoder/decoder?

Lawsuits

[gcheek]

Is it just me, or is EVERYONE getting so fed up with all the rules and regulations. If we're all fed up why not do something about it.. Look at the 60's everyone would boycot and riot, now I'm not saying we need to go to their extreme but it worked. Maybe we can start a petition and starting emailing the movie houses for EVERYONE's signature.

If I can't watch a show when its on.. I'd like to watch it later.. If I can't watch a movie when it's on.. I'd like to watch it later... Now am I so wrong to want to be entertained by what I when I have the time?

I'd love to hear others views!

To: TV and Government... Don't like what I'm saying? Bring it on... Just post a reply and I'll give you ALL my contact info so you can come knock on my door. That's right I'm fed up.. and am not afraid.

I download new movies tv programs you name it! If a movie is worth the $ I go see it if it stinks I don't.. until the movie houses offer me a refund if I'm not happy I'm not going to change.

MPEG2 decoding

[malus]

It's a shame that the host computer has to decode the MPEG data. that's a pretty serious performance hit (hence, the 1.2gHz CPU requirement). It's a shame the card doesn't do onboard decoding. I'd have paid an extra sheckel or two for that.

Re:MPEG2 decoding

[brandon]

Any GeForce 440MX or newer chipset supports XvMC which will offload the CPU of decoding the MPEG2 stream, but you still need around a 1.8Ghz system to handle the displaying of X. A GeForce fx5200 is the most popular card (It has DVI output) and costs around $50 at newegg for the card.

--Brandon

Re:MPEG2 decoding

[zmollusc]

I have a PIII 600 200Mb ram which I use for software decoding digital tv (hauppauge nova t 90002 card) and writing the Mpeg2 to disk. It uses maybe 60% cpu resources max. Replaying the resultant (720x500 or something pixel) file uses 100% cpu.

Re:MPEG2 decoding

[malus]

I suppose it's all really a moot point, anyhow.

Of the five broadcast (major networks, and one indie and PBS) that I can extract over the air aren't worth it.

I could pay another $12.00 a month to the local cable monopoly to get another HD box to tune in the aforementioned five channels (well, subtract 2. The NBC affiliate and the indie station refuse to do business with local cable monopoly, they don't wanna give up their point-channels) plus a whopping selection of: HBO HD (wow, two new movies a month, geewhiz(tm)), TNT HD (CSI/Law & Order, anyone?) and Discover HD (what a purty tree frog).

All in all, the current state of HD sucks anyway. I guess i'll stick with my two cheapie ($40) Tv-wonder cards.

Time to Fight Back!

[gcheek]

Is it just me, or is EVERYONE getting so fed up with all the rules and regulations. If we're all fed up why not do something about it.. Look at the 60's everyone would boycot and riot, now I'm not saying we need to go to their extreme but it worked. Maybe we can start a petition and starting emailing the movie houses for EVERYONE's signature. If I can't watch a show when its on.. I'd like to watch it later.. If I can't watch a movie when it's on.. I'd like to watch it later... Now am I so wrong to want to be entertained by what I when I have the time? I'd love to hear others views! To: TV and Government... Don't like what I'm saying? Bring it on... Just post a reply and I'll give you ALL my contact info so you can come knock on my door. That's right I'm fed up.. and am not afraid. I download new movies tv programs you name it! If a movie is worth the $ I go see it if it stinks I don't.. until the movie houses offer me a refund if I'm not happy I'm not going to change. Make good movies and I'll pay to watch! or make bad movies and give me my money back if I'm not happy!

Re:Time to Fight Back!

[AdamHaeder]

Yes, EVERYONE is getting fed up with this, but currently EVERYONE = the slashdot audience. Not the largest market sector. The general public won't understand this until it's too late.

Re:Time to Fight Back!

[gcheek]

Then wouldn't this entail ALL of our efforts in a public event to attract attention and educate the public? Don't we realize if we were able to get a million man march formed... we would have some attention of the government etc. If we use our rights, "Freedom of Speach" in a legal manner couldn't we help before its too late? I'm tired of talking.. I'm ready to take action... I'm not suggesting making it legal to pirate movies... I'm saying make it reasonable to expect a refund for a poor movie.. yea they dumped millions of dollars into it.. and then came up with a trailer/preview that made me "think" it would be a good movie.. so I shell out my $8.50 for myself and another $8.50 for my wife.. my the couple we go with shells out $17 to see it.. and one of us like it.. so they pay to see it.. the rest of us walked out ticked off that we spent good money to see a lame movie. Just give me back my money... and let me choose! For this reason.. I don't go to the theater hardly ever. Usually I wait and rent a movie.. if it's good I wish I'd seen it in theater... And while I'm at it.. give me my money back for that DVD that got scratched that you won't replace, and I can't make a backup of...

Re:Time to Fight Back!

[iamacat]

Look at the 60's everyone would boycot and riot

60's riots where about the draft for Vietnam war. If people are forced go get killed, it's entirely approporiate for them to protest by running around and smashing stuff.

Now there is another war with a country that didn't attack US, and national guard soldiers are being forced to fight indefinitely, when they signed up to defend the homeland against invasion and natural disasters - in their home state and for limited time. Remember Bush dodging Vietnam in NG? As far as this group goes - go ahead block traffic and flood some toilets. If I am personally inconvinienced I'll understand these people have bigger concerns.

As for movies - abandon both movie theaters and P2P networks and set up a system where you and 10 of your friends buy used DVDs and can borrow them from each other at any time. Or just rent movies from a public library - for free! You will be next to impossible to catch and then what are they going to charge you with - visiting a library? Movie industry will just realize their game is up and start offering the stuff on more consumer-friendly terms. Music industry kind of did already - pick any songs you like for $1 each, burn your own CD and do whatever you want with it.

Re:Time to Fight Back!

[untaken_name]

Don't we realize if we were able to get a million man march formed...

If they couldn't do it for civil rights, what makes you think you could for convenience? I mean, sure it would be nice if they gave money back for bad movies....but how would you ensure that only people who truly did not enjoy the movie asked for a refund? I mean, there are so many people out there who would abuse that system that even libertarians like me don't think it's a good idea. Look, life entails risk. I used to work at a movie theater, and we *did* give refunds in certain cases. These were people who asked for one within 10 minutes of the movie starting. The point I'm trying to make is that you aren't paying for receiving enjoyment from a movie. You are paying to sit in the seats provided and listen on the sound system provided and watch on the screen provided. If you stay the whole time, you don't DESERVE a refund.

Re:Time to Fight Back!

[Artifakt]

Things changed a lot after Vietnam. Since about 1980, the National Guard has generally been expected to go overseas as needed. There aren't a lot of guardsmen who can honestly say they never expected to be deployed in an active duty war anymore. The Guard and Reserves have some real reasons to complain, but that's not one of them.
Many Guard and Reserve units are now being expected to stay in combat zones for more than a standard tour of duty, and others are being rotated out anomalously - rather than returning stateside afterwards, some units are going to Korea, which is basically rotating from combat to semi-combat. In Vietnam, a combat zone tour was 6 Months. A year in Iraq and another year in Korea on the DMZ is going to cause a lot more stress on some than even Vietnam. I urge everyone, for or against the war, to remember these people are volunteers, and that most of them are already accepting that they are called on to make a greater effort than the largely draftee army in the Vietnam era, but many are dissappointed that the public at large doesn't even know that's what's being asked. Urge your government both to find ways to rotate these people out on time, and to give them the help when they return that some of them will surely need.

Re:Time to Fight Back!

[exquisito]

Sending letters won't help -- these decisions are made by elites in the entertainment industry and their lobby groups. Since money is at stake, our cute little opinion doesn't mean sh-t. They can hear us, but they don't care. We are not dealing with a democratic process, but a coalition of powerful people deciding how we live in the privacy of our own homes! The only way to fight this, in the long term, is to pay for our own lobby group, which is not going to happen on my salary.

I'd also guess that the industry has decided on their new distribution model already. They are going to make money with pay per view. They are fighting to protect pay per view, where they own and control the media.

Let's be realistic...if someone creates technology to help them with their pay-per-view, and builds in backdoors so lower quality personal copies can be made, we will have ourselves a compromise that might just be workable.

This card will *not* be illegal in 2005

[psyconaut]

"It also ignores the Broadcast Flag, which means that it will be illegal in the States starting July 1st, 2005, under a recent FCC Order."

No, the FCC order makes provision for "grandfathering" any existing devices. Anyone with any common sense would see that it would be completely unreasonable for that expensive HDTV you've got to suddenly become "illegal"!

-psy

Don't miss the underlying point

[Chris Burke]

Yes, Democrats and Republicans are different. If you'll pardon the hyperbole, Pol Pot and Stalin are different, but I wouldn't vote for either.

The key thing to understand is that while Democrats and Republicans (and any other powerful party, the States just happen to have only two) may differ in many ways, they are very similar in that they are politicians and should not be trusted. Clinton signing the DMCA and the roving wiretap laws is a very salient example of the ways you can be screwed by whoever is holding power if you fail to hold them accountable. Forgiving Clinton and the Democrats for signing a blatantly anti-4th Ammendment law because Democrats and Republicans are different is foolish.

It's that kind of partisan loyalty that allows both parties to get away with this kind of crap. Of course the way this works is as soon as someone wants to hold someone of one party accountable, a loyalist says "But the other party is no better!" thus distracting the issue of accountability as it goes back and forth. The appropriate response? Yes, you're right, so let's hold them all accountable.

DMCA already does this

[debest]

you basically are legally allowing something and then making it so hard to accomplish that only a very small portion of the population can benefit from that legal provision

This is precisely what the DMCA already does. It forbids the "trafficking" (for want of a better word) in devices (programs or physical objects) that circumvent copy protection schemes. If a copy protection scheme does not permit fair use, it is not illegal to reclaim those fair use rights by disabling the scheme. It is, however, illegal to tell anyone else how you did it. That potentially leaves only the technical elite to be able to legally use the media in a fair manner. This effect is, of course, exactly as intended by the law.

As you stated, making things difficult is entirely permitted by copyright law. Where the DMCA is legally objectionable is that it creates ban is on the communication of an idea (ie: free speech), and I hope a case which can address gets successfully heard at the Supreme Court soon!

Future Cards

[Anonymous Coward]

What exactly does a card have to do to comply with the broadcast flag ruling? Would it suffice to simply tell the application using the card that it is "protected" content - and let the application decide what to do? Just put in the API that a program should "disable all 'recording' features" if the card reports it as being protected content, but it may still allow timeshifting and viewing?

Funny you should mention that!

[SuperKendall]

For what? At least with alcohol, anyone and their mother could produce the stuff.

Funny thing - with computers and digital video cameras and rendering software lots of people can use now, the same is true for TV now!

Look at one of the most popular types of shows around now - reality TV. Just about anyone could slap one of these together on a limited budget and charge for broadcasts over the net.

There are other outlets for video that can have far less in the way of restrictions, and people will use them if TV starts locking down convienience. If people can't record things and share them with friends they are going to get mad, and there are going to be a lot of them.

Excuse my ignorance...

[Shafe]

I just wanted to confirm: if I buy this card, throw it into my Linux box, and install MythTV, I will be able to record Discover HD and everything else that's HD? (is Daily Show available in HD?)

Cuz that would just be swell. I'd love to have an HD-DVR for cable!

Legal?

[ninji]

Q: Can I use these cards after July 1st 2005?

A: Yes you can use them, they are "grandfathered" into the new
regulations. It will always be completely legal to use them. The card
ignores the copy right bit and if a show has this bit enabled, the
card doesn't care and will save the stream in full quality anyway.

A: This becomes a very gray area. From what I have heard, the
regulation prohibits you from SELLING devices cross STATE boundries that
do not follow the new regulations. From what I hear, if you assemble
a HD tuner yourself, it is still legal. I know though that the
HD-3000 card will not be sold after July 1st 2005 if the EFF and other
groups don't win the case to fight the broadcast flag. I am 100% sure
this is not the end of HDTV in Myth or any computer, and I'm not just
refering to using firewire or usb from dish/cable boxes to get the HD
into Myth. For the next little while I can't comment though.

According to these excperts I pulled from one of the previous links, Im lead to belive it WONT be illegal after then jsut illegal to purchase it afterward.

Not only that but

[cat_jesus]

I think it's rediculous to feel the need to ask such questions, but I also think it's rediculous that these guys

It's ridiculous that so many people consistently misspell ridiculous

Re:Not only that but

[WaterDamage]

Complete nonsense, peeple don't constantly misspeel words on /. We is a far more edumicated bunch than the audience CNN targets! Just look at Jesse Jackson, he's living proof that the US is one of the best edumicated societies.

Sig of the day: Raise your IQ, eat gifted children.

It is.

[cuberat]

In the US, anyways. I live in San Diego, and I have an HDTV and tuner, but I use satellite for most of my viewing and didn't get the HD receiver (many $$$$).

I was reading through a forum moderated by an engineer at one of the local stations, and he said I just needed an HDTV antenna like this one and I could get the local channels in HDTV for free.

He was right. I can, and do. It's not very big, slightly smaller than a basketball, and just sits on top of the set. There are also bigger versions that can be mounted outdoors a la the old analog antennae, but that's not an option for me since I live in an apartment. The local stations have been upgrading, so the service is getting better all the time. Now, the networks have to be broadcasting in HDTV to get the benefit, obviously, but that's fairly common for primetime and major sporting events.

I call FUD...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure for anyone with a little time to do the research there will be firmware hacks that pop up soon enough to disable the broadcast flag in future hardware. How long did it take for us to have region-free dvd drives?

FPGAs to the rescue?

[Anonymous Coward]

So how much of the decoding needs an ASIC? If each codec itself is accelerated with hardware, the controls could be firmware. So make and sell a card with an FPGA controlling the overall scheme. Route around the problem. *shrug*

What we really need is....

[Anonymous Coward]

You can currently do much of what you want with any input source, be it cable OTA or satellite. The problem is that it is very expensive.

What you need is something that combines the SDI video capture functionality of something like the http://www.blackmagic-design.com/site/decklinkhd.h tmBlackMagic DeckLink HD combined with a Component video to SDI converter.

To make this magical piece of hardware work, without needing massive amounts of RAID or a PCI express bus, you need a built in realtime Mpeg 4 compressor (so you could compress a 2 hour video down to about 4GB and still have about 3-4x the resolution of a DVD). I'm not sure how well the existing DeckLink RJPEG output works well enough to be useful.

And sell this all for around $500...

Apple, where are you?

[LoudMusic]

Why isn't Apple getting in on the video capture market? They could sell PowerMacs and iMacs with video capture built in and make a ton of cash.

At least, I think so. But I'm probably wrong.

Re:Apple, where are you?

[Wesley Felter]

Analog video capture (which was included on Macs in the mid 90s) is dead. These days people are getting video over Firewire from camcorders or over SDI. Likewise, everybody has cable or satellite instead of broadcast TV now. The satellite providers don't want to be recorded, and you record digital cable using Firewire.

Re: it's actually trademarked...

[jackrd]

I felt compelled to check whether Land Of The Free (tm) was an actual trademark. It is, but I was surprised to see what for...

Word Mark LAND OF THE FREE
Goods and Services IC 030. US 046. G & S: SOYA-BASED NONDAIRY FROZEN DESSERTS FOR CONSUMPTION ON OR OFF THE PREMISES. FIRST USE: 19850401. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19850401
Owner (REGISTRANT) TOFU TIME INC.
(emphasis mine)

Those damn IP-holding, money-grubbing...tofu companies?
And don't forget, kids, enjoy your Tofu-Time Soya-based non-dairy frozen desserts on OR off the premises. After all, this is The Land Of The Free (tm)
For more trademark fun, be sure to visit the USPTO.

Re:Drivers,CPU hungry; Use 720p instead? 480?

[UnapprovedThought]

If 1080i blasts out at 200 Megs per second (as someone else in this discussion claims) then it definitely is a drain on resources requiring, what, 700 Gigs just to store a 1 hour program? Either that's a lot of storage, or a lot of cpu time compressing it to 70 Gigs.

How well do the 720 and 480 modes work and what are the real performance requirements for that?

Maybe it's possible to buy this card, get some use out of it before july, and because it supports Linux, count on ongoing support even if the unthinkable should happen.

Ideal HDTV Solution.. USB2 or ieee1394 device

[tube013]

An Ideal solution for me would be a USB2 or ieee1394 (firewire) device that I could use on the road with my notebook, or at home with my desktop. Would love a usb tv tuner for my laptop, as far as I know current driver support for linux is abysmal.

Dems differ from Republicans?

[MacDork]

Grrr... that argument is really old. The Democrats differ from the Republicans on any number of issues

They have their differences, but both parties have a lot of overlap on issues too. Especially THIS issue. Both side with Hollywood, not librarians. Telling me how different the two are on affirmative action is pretty pointless when the discussion is about copyright.

It's not a law, it's a FCC mandate.

[MacDork]

And since it isn't a law, I would be interested in knowing what penalties one can expect to receive should the mandate be ignored. Anyone care to enlighten me? The first defector stands to make a lot of $$$ and schemes like region coding seems to be universally ignored these days.

Legal to sell but not manufacture?

[Andy Dodd]

What about imports?

Last chance for OPEN SOURCE HTDV?

[Kazoo the Clown]

The real reason to buy this may be simply because it's an open-source solution. Virtually any protection mechanisms can only be enforced by inhibiting the users ability to customize the gear as they see fit. Consumers of all electronic gear should patently refuse to buy hardware by companies that withold sufficient specifications in an attempt to thwart a user's ability to repurpose the equipment.

Unfortunately, most people don't understand the value of such customization, and will no doubt be taken in by the marketing engines of companies who sell closed equipment. User cluelessness is thereby costing all of us money and taking away our freedoms. But like the greedy sheep such users are, they will gleefully parade right into the slaughterhouse, chasing after a sparkly trinket and blissfully unaware of the ultimate consequences of their ignorance.

Let us all pause to curse the accuracy of P. T. Barnum's insight.

There's a reason for this.

[Andy Dodd]

Video decompression happens to be one of the few areas where the P4's deep pipeline doesn't hurt its performance (not many branch mispredictions)

i.e. the P4 is much more efficient per clock cycle for video decompression than it is for many other things, thus its significantly higher performance compared to the Athlon in these few situations.

Ooops-- not Barnum, Mencken...

[Kazoo the Clown]

Oops, guess it was one of Mencken's insights:

No one in this world, so far as I know_and I have searched the records for years, and employed agents to help me_has ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the great masses of the plain people.
-- H. L. Mencken

Apparently this is often quoted as "No one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American people."

Mencken also said:

People can easily be persuaded to accept the most inferior ideas or useless products.

and:

Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard.

As a hobbit once said...

[expro]

"You're arrested for Gate-Breaking, and Tearing up of Rules, and Assaulting Gate-Keepers, and Trespassing, and Sleeping in Shire-Buildings without Leave, and Bribing Guards with Food."

"And what else?" said Frodo.

"That'll do to go on with," said the Shiriff-leader.

"I can add some more, if you'd like it," said Sam. "Calling your Chief Names, Wishing to punch his Pimply Face, and Thinking you Shirriffs look a lot of Tom-Fools."

How long till we have to water the tree of liberty with more blood. But then we would be terrorists, for even thinking it.

Umm it's working fine here....

[Anonymous Coward]

You'll never ever see an HDTV card that works directly from a cable or satellite feed. Just like there are no cards which work directly with nonHDTV encrypted content. That won't ever happen so put that out of your mind.

You are incorrect, but this is a very common misconception so do not feel at all bad.

I'm also a prolific user of alt.binaries.multimedia. But only for Canadian and European content these days, because I did the following searches...

on Ebay: 1020a
on Google: al7bar
on al7bar: softcam.key

An education awaits you that will blow your mind.

Save drivers

[Solitude]

Make sure you save each driver version you download. They will undoubtedly be pressured to honor that broadcast flag eventually. I use several older versions of software because the newer versions got stupefied.

If you are in the right market...

[Ayanami Rei]

your cable provider will give you a digital cable box with firewire outputs... for use with an external PVR-type device.
These cable boxes are rental-only usually, and pretty expensive. :-(
But it's nice being able to pull full MPEG2-TS.

Re:Ideal HDTV Solution.. USB2 or ieee1394 device

[MNeau]

a guy at work here just got his Sasem USB HDTV decoder. not more than 20 minutes ago did we try it out. We watched a broadcast on his 1920x1280 laptop... nice! this was on a windows machine.

Intel GMA900 integrated graphics (I'm not kidding)

[MojoStan]

I'm more interested in a video card ... with an HDTV output... it would be oh-so-nice to throw 1080 resolution to my 42" HDTV..

Intel's Graphics Media Accelerator 900 (GMA 900), which is part of the 915G chipset, supports native widescreen output to HDTV displays at 720p and 1080p.

The HDTV output is supplied via a supposedly inexpensive ADD2 card which plugs into the PCI Express x16 port. I say "supposedly" because I haven't seen an HDTV-out ADD2 card yet. I've only seen DVI-D ADD2 cards as cheap options (around $10-20) from PC manufacturers. I don't know if the DVI-D output will work with your 42" HDTV.

Of course, I'm not really recommending Intel GMA 900 graphics for most Slashdot readers. But I think this is a good indication that easy HDTV output will soon be standard on all cards, even low-end cards.

Knock it off.

[kurfu]

Jesus people. Just quit watching the damn television and do something else. What is the big effing deal?!?
Yes, I'm one of those "I don't watch TV" people... But *I* started the movement.
Go outside or something, ya worthless bunch of pansy-a$$ed pasty looking slaves to the flickering photon. Turn it off.
/off for more booze.

Re:Drivers,CPU hungry; Use 720p instead? 480?

[dododge]

If 1080i blasts out at 200 Megs per second

No, each channel broadcasts a 19.2 Mbit/sec compressed signal, and you record that directly to disk without decompressing it. It needs about 9 Gbytes/hour.

or a lot of cpu time compressing it to 70 Gigs.

Realtime compression of HDTV is completely infeasible on a home computer. It requires specialized hardware which, if it even exists as something that can be put into a computer, will likely cost tens or hundreds of thousands of dollars. This sort of hardware might exist at the broadcast station, if they want to do things like overlay their logo onto the picture.

Sometimes the data streams contain multiple programs (such as a standard definition simulcast alongside a high definition one). And there might also be null packets to pad out the bitrate. So you can sometimes reduce the storage requirements by filtering out the packets you don't want. There aren't exactly lot of tools on Linux to easily do this, though.

In any case the actual recording doesn't require a very powerful machine at all. I've easily done it with an Athlon 800 while running a desktop full of other applications.

It's the playback of the recorded streams that will cause you trouble. Doing the MPEG decompression to turn the recorded stream into video frames or fields requires a huge amount of horsepower, especially if you actually want to output it at full resolution (since you then have to get all of those decoded pixels into video memory fast enough).

I've tried an Athlon XP 2400+ with an NVIDIA FX5200 with XvMC extensions to do hardware-assisted decompression in the video card, and I still wasn't happy with the results. It could not support 1920x1080 full resolution output without some stuttering in the framerate. The only thing I've found so far that decompressed the video streams really well was the Roku HD1000 set-top box, which has a high definition MPEG decoder integrated into the the CPU. Roku may have other issues with audio decoding and user interface, though.

Bear in mind this is all with Linux. Under Windows there are many other video cards and drivers that claim some level of HD video support, so perhaps it's easier to get good results.

Re:Drivers,CPU, MPEG; hassle factor is by design

[UnapprovedThought]

Sometimes the data streams contain multiple programs (such as a standard definition simulcast alongside a high definition one). And there might also be null packets to pad out the bitrate.

I guess this was done for the sake of backward compatibility, but it's a bandwidth-hogging, CPU-cycle burning mess in the meantime. Now if nobody switches over to HD then we will be stuck with it as the de-facto permanent standard :) I personally don't have any driving need to spend a fortune on HDTV since 99% of the content is garbage. Sure, it'll be sharper, brighter, flashing, jumping-out-of-the-screen at you garbage, but still garbage.

...high definition MPEG [decompression]...

That explains it all.

If the tools were available, this is what I would try: decode the video stream into a raw format on disk. Then, play back from the raw format. Either it does so smoothly or your disk [array] or bus is swamped by the data rate. Then, you would basically have to filter out extraneous stuff and/or take reductions in image quality until it fits through the bus. For most people, the hassle factor is pretty strong.

Under Windows there are many other video cards and drivers that claim some level of HD video support, so perhaps it's easier to get good results.

Putting on my wild speculation hat, I wouldn't be surprised if most modern video cards already come equipped to do MPEG decompression right out of the box. But maybe it's a behind-the-scenes gag order forcing the driver either to remain closed in order to enable MPEG mode, or to keep the appropriate register settings well hidden.

For a non-TV consumer like me, buying a DTV card may be unlikely, but even less than that is to buy in to non-freedom just for the sake of convenience.

Re:Drivers,CPU, MPEG; hassle factor is by design

[dododge]

but it's a bandwidth-hogging,

ATSC may require a fixed bitrate, and I think some D-VHS decks are also very picky about this, which is why you might find padding (sometimes quite a lot).

Simulcasting a program in HD and SD would probably be for backwards compatibility with older displays. Some broadcasters also use this ability to send different programs, for example the local PBS station has five subchannels in their stream and they shift the bandwidth allocations around depending on the time of day.

CPU-cycle burning mess

You can demux and filter with very little horsepower, since it doesn't require doing any MPEG decompression. Stripping out the subprograms you don't want, and removing null packets, can probably be done at recording time with very little overhead. I think the most popular such filter is a Java application, in fact.

decode the video stream into a raw format on disk. Then, play back from the raw format.

Would probably work fine, if you've got 600Gbytes/hour of disk space available. Uncompressed HD needs around 1.5Gbit/sec. There are systems and software that handle this (intended mainly for studio and production work) but they are very expensive.

I wouldn't be surprised if most modern video cards already come equipped to do MPEG decompression right out of the box.

Many recent cards and drivers support XvMC on Linux, which can be used to hardware-assist MPEG decoding of frames. This mostly works already; it depends on how fast a machine and card you have, and how picky you are about the results.

In the case of the Roku, it has an ATI Xilleon CPU which is specificially designed for this sort of thing. You can pretty much just hand it the entire stream (without demuxing, I think) and it will uncompress and scale the desired subprogram.

forcing the driver either to remain closed

Certainly in the case of the Xilleon, ATI won't tell you squat about how to use it unless you're a partner developer and sign NDAs. They won't even publicly discuss the features present in the chip, so most of what I know about it is based on speculation, inferences from other documents, and a trickle of details from those who do have the knowledge.