I've bought my last CD from any major label or independent label that puts copy protection on any of its music....I'm not a thief. I'm a customer. When you treat me like a thief, I won't be your customer.
Me too.
But realize this-- the RIAA's spin will claim that any falloff in revenue is due to piracy, not a boycott-- hence their need for the copy protection.
Does anyone remember a couple years back when they were launching the Cassini satellite? There was a huge movement to stop the launch because the Cassini had radioactive fuel, which in an accident above the earth (either in the initial launch or the "boomerang" across the planet) could potentially threaten millions of earth lives for centuries to come.
NASA at the time said that there were safety features that made an accident virtually impossible.
I wonder now, considering the fuckups w/the various Mars missions and this $825m satellite, whether they should be allowed to continue using plutonium fuel...
Thoughts? Are these protesters paranoid or do they have a valid point?
W
DeCSS has a legit. purpose when copyright expires
on
More Details on the CBDTPA
·
· Score: 5, Interesting
As soon as locked DVDs move into the public domain, DeCSS suddenly has a very legitimate use-- to permit access to "free" content.
The supporters of this bill are also working to see that stuff doesn't ever elevate to the public domain.
But I wonder: Wouldn't it just take ONE copyright holder who's previously locked a DVD with CSS to say "AS OF NOW, My movie is now in the public domain" to totally legitimize DeCSS? It would no longer pass the "solely to circumvent protection of copyrighted works" test.
On this view, copyright expiration and/or the potential for voluntary relicensing may legitimize every single anti-DRM tool.
I don't know if this has any relevency (I haven't really looked at the patent) but a ton of online games used to rank users back in the day on Bulletin Boards on the Apple ][ and match them against each other. These include role playing games as well as simple online video games. (I myself wrote a few online text-based video games that ranked users in like 1985)
There was also a bulletin board system called Proving Grounds that was basically a multiplayer adventure game played online that matched you up with people of your own skill level to do battle. Not with a web server, but the idea was the same.
As I recall, numerous MUDs would have entry levels for new users to get their skill levels up to the point they could go where all the regular users were.
If any networked game says something like "is this your first time here?" and then puts you in a different game with other users as users with preset accounts, wouldn't that be prior art for this patent?
Here is the passage to which I think you refer: "The Gecko rendering engine at the heart of the Mozilla Web browser is scheduled to replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer as AOL's default browser [...] in the 8.0 version of AOL's client software."
There you go...
Emphasis mine. For those playing at home, you may want to note two things:
1. "scheduled" != "will"
"scheduled" pretty much == "will"
2. this is not an official announcement from AOL
This is true, however it does quote several AOL engineers. I never claimed that this was an official report from AOL. I said (for those of you following at home) that " Newsforge has reported"...which it has.
Please don't fan the flames of speculation any higher. I would suggest taking a conservative approach to "news" pieces such as these in the future. Then again, why should you listen to me?
You are right that this has not yet been confirmed by AOL in a press release, however I linked to the story and only made a statement about what Newsforge was reporting-- and I stand by that. I think "is scheduled to use" is close enough to "will use" for the purposes of my post, much as "Mozilla 1.0 will be released soon" and "Mozilla 1.0 is scheduled to be released soon" are taken by normal readers to be equivalent. By "will" I mean "is scheduled to" and if there's any confusion you can read the article. I did, after all provide the link.
If you're worried about "blowing" the deal by spreading the news, that's another concern, but unless I read something to the contrary, I presume this was leaked with reason or at least that no one at AOL cares all that much.
I'm frantically searching for a page I remember seeing on one of the apple rumor sites saying that OS X 10.2 was going to have a 10% across-the-board speed increase due to Apple's custom improvements to the GCC compiler for PPC...
Anyone know where this link is or more about this?
Is VP3 "free" as in.. well.. what's it free as in?
on
More on MPEG4
·
· Score: 2
From what I recall, there was some discussion about the on2's vp# formats in terms of how free they are. As I remember, there were some limitations and restrictions on using the format (one had to do with keeping all encoders file-compatible with the standard.) and I think they charge for commercial uses of vp4 and vp5 or something....
Does anyone with more experience analysing legalese know how VP3.2 license stands up as "free/open" software?
I've always thought you could use some kind of distributed system to indicate when commercials are on, so you can stop recording.
So if like 90% of the users in your area say there's a commercial going, drop some kind of "commercial start/stop" marker.
You could do the same thing w/listings-- compile the TV guide the same way the CDDB was originally populated, ie everyone contributes a tiny part and everyone benefits.
"Inverse kinimatics" was added to such modeling/rendering programs as SoftImage back in the early 90s. You could "drop" stuff and have it bounce around or blow in the wind or act like jello or whatever. Yes, even fall down stairs.
You just create your model and connect the "bones" (fundimental objects that move) via articulated joints that could swivel in any direction you specify. Then determine what forces are acting on it (gravity or wind for example) and stuff like how the objects interact (do they bounce? or stick?) and then just hit "play" and off it goes...
Second: While digital projection is pretty good, digital acquisition has a long, long, long way to go before it catches up to film. Even the manufacturers will tell you that. CCD's are simply not capable of producing the dynamic range that film does. Video formats are not currently capable of reproducing the range that film does. In projection this is not a big issue, because there is enough range to look good. But in production this is a huge issue. There are many scenes that simply cannot be captured pleasantly on video (daylight exteriors are the hardest) because there is simply too much of a brightness difference between the subject (that you want correctly exposed) and the brightest elements in the frame (like the sky). This is a problem that will take a long time to overcome. For this reason I think that the most viable chain in the medium-term future will be to shoot on film, transfer to digital (files -- not HD-video -- HD is too limited both in terms of resolution and color gamut), and do digital post.
Yeah, I know I kinda diverged from projection to acquisition a bit. I guess what I'm saying is that projection is more or less there-- it looks great-- but in production as well, money will be saved (although Kodak will argue not that much) by acquiring on video. And I think they're a lot closer than you say-- yeah, video's lattitude isn't 11 stops yet, the aesthetic is slightly different, but I kinda like the lack of grain and the better colors. It's not film, but it's.. something else.
Video technology is always improving and becoming less expensive and the film-look processes are getting much better too.
Will film ever completely disappear? I don't think so. Some filmmakers will continue to use it, no doubt. But clearly video is moving in to replace it in a lot of areas. And they're (Bamboozled, Session 9, Series 7, Star Wars II, How High (so I hear), Time Code, etc.) coming to a theater near you.
Then there are movies like "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" that was shot on film, then transferred 100% to digital to be edited and processed, and then transferred back to film...
If you compare DLP (which they use for projection) to 35mm, the 35mm print will have greater fine detail, better shadow detail, and look far better overall.
I have seen quite a few digitally projected films with both major projection systems over the years at the local AMC including Toy Story 2, Tarzan, Star Wars I, Monsters Inc, and others.
The absence of scratches are immediately apparent from the second the films begins. They are so jarringly clean that it takes a couple seconds to get used to it. Tarzan in particular was amazing, like looking into an animated window.
In fact, the most distracting thing about the digital experience has been the annoying FILM GRAIN in Star Wars. Well, of course, there was the crappiness of the movie itself, which was worse, but anyway...
Yes, you can make out the regularly-shaped square pixels in digital projection, but only if you look for it, and only when there is a high-contrast between bright and dark areas, such as when titles are superimposed over a black background. These pixels at least are regularly spaced and steady, as opposed to the jittery "dance" of film grain, which is omnipresent in film. Once I went from a clean screening of Toy Story 2 to another viewing of it on film, the grain really bothered me.
Aside from that, I found the colors to be brighter and more vivid than film with deep blacks and bright whites and shades of orange and blue that I just hadn't seen projected before. And there is no distracting 24 fps flicker-- it's hard to explain, but it's something like the difference between watching a flickering CRT vs. the steady image of an LCD.
The only real advantage digital offers is that the print won't get worse over time, but how long are prints in the theater for now anyway? A month?
Well first off, in major cities that may be true. However, from what I understand, the 2nd run cities and smaller towns get the prints after they've run through the projector dozens of times.
Face it, film breaks, film is scratched. Film must be spliced together when it breaks. Film goes out of sync...
Resolution-wise it's difficult to measure film grain count vs. pixel count because video offers anti-aliasing and other tricks to improve the image.
The advantage of digital for the studios is that it's cheaper. Films open far wider now than they ever used to, and play for shorter periods of time, and all those prints cost more money for the studio and eat into their profits. It doesn't matter that DLP projectors only have 1280x1024 resolution (at least the ones that theaters use), they save them money in the long run, so the studios love them.
It's not just the prints-- movies shot on high-end (Lucas-level) video are (in theory) much cheaper than film. Every bad shot in film is wasted negative. Tape stock is relatively cheap in comparison.
You save money on raw film stock. You save money on processing. You save money on creating workprint and answer prints when color-balancing (timing) the film. Then, yeah, you save money on the final prints, you save money on postage having to to distribute heavy cases of film to all your exhibitors. You don't have to worry about film jamming in the gate of your camera or breaking in the lab...
Editing-wise, digital video is far simpler. No keycode to link to timecode (if you've ever had to deal with 3-2 pulldown or audio sync issues when editing film on video or a non-linear editor, you'll know what I'm talking about) No 24/30 fps conversions. Color correction and effects can be easily added in the original medium without losing quality. No need to worry about costly optical effects or negative duping if you wanna use a shot more than once.
And of course, the quality of the original image is the same quality of what you see on the screen, no matter how many times the image is composited, manipulated, copied, re-edited, etc. With film, you are guaranteed to be seeing at least a third generation copy of the negative. (it goes from the negative to an internegative to a print... and that's without any optical effects added, which may require more losses in generations)
For an independent filmmaker, the costs of shooting on film can be prohibitive. As video gets cheaper and better, there's no denying its appeal to lower budget projects.
Roger Ebert has written about this and has a great column about a new film technology that shoots at 48 fps instead of 24 fps, makes all motion look much more fluid, prevents annoying film artifacts you'll see, and is acually an improvement over current 35mm film, instead of a downgrade like digital is.
Ebert's been pushing that 48 fps film for years now. 48 fps means the film is running through the camera/projector twice as fast. If the image size is the same, that means you're burning film twice as fast, which means your film costs are twice as high.
I've heard that it's cool, but because of the expense (and the fact that it's still a physical, mechanical technology) I just don't see that ever being anything more than a novelty.
For people wondering, Lucas shot Episode II using special new Sony HD Cameras that shoot at 1080p, 24 fps, and use Panavision lenses. They are incredibly nice, the best DV cameras out there, but don't have the resolution that film does no matter how advanced they are.
Like I said, it's sort of comparing apples and oranges. From my totally subjective point of view, the digitally projected Toy Story 2 was VASTLY superior in terms of color, clarity, and overall image quality to the film version.
I think stuff like CGI films that went straight from the computer to digital projection have been the best of what I've seen so far. Because, yeah, I'll admit it-- film does have a certain quality that as yet digital projection hasn't really captured. Kind of a surreal, magical, hard-to-describe look. And you can do a lot of cool shit chemically with film.
But DV has its own qualities that are waiting to be explored. And I really think thatit's not gonna be too much long before they get the video to look and act like film. Most of the video we see looks crappy because it's shot like it's on video. But I think that cinematographers have a whole new world to explore because believe it or not, you can actually light a DV project WELL if you want to.
For those of you interested in checking out a "film" shot on 24P DV, USA Films released a movie not too long ago called Session 9 with David Caruso (yeah, yeah. I know). I haven't seen it on DVD yet (saw a 35mm transfer), but it's among the very first films out using super-high end video acquisition. If you can't wait until Star Wars and wanna see some 24p stuff, check it out. You may change your mind about what's around the corner.
We received a note saying that the BSA was authorized by our software suppliers to perform this audit and refusal was a violation of our software license.
I'm not sure I get this. If you pirated the software, you didn't sign a license with anyone, did you? And if you signed the license, then that means you bought it, right?
Unless I guess maybe they're assuming you made more than the limited number of copies or whatever. Hmm. I dunno, something there seems wrong.
In any event, if you didn't sign any EULA but they think you're pirating something, how can they justify a raid?
I see some posts from people talking about DocBook as if it's an application-- it's not. Docbook is a DTD (Document Type Declaration): it's a specification of tags used to markup documentation, much like HTML's DTD (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/dtd.html) describe those tags used to mark up a web page.
So, like, documentation written using the DocBook DTD will look something like a web page, only the tags that surround the content are specific stuff you'd find in documentations. Some of the tags look like this:
<book>
<chapter>
<title>
<para>
<note>
<procedure>
<step>
<userinput>
<figure>
etc.
All you really need in order to write documentation in DocBook is an editor that can handle SGML or XML and can use DTDs. Files marked up using DocBook are simple SGML (or XML) text files, and you can alter how they are displayed or printed with.CSS just like a web page.
So you can have a single source for all your documentation, such as a manual for your software, and output from docbook to any other format-- PDF, HTML, XML, or print.
There are lots of open source programs out there for writing XML files that let you import a DTD, some of which are specifically geared towards Docbook. Other applications take files marked up using DocBook and, along with a.css file to say how to display each of the tags, convert/format them into whatever you want:.eps,.pdf,.html, etc.
Russ Cooper, who moderates a popular security mailing list and works for security firm TruSecure, said Conover's actions are irresponsible.
"I think it's better to provide details of the exploit and then let other people write the actual code," Cooper said. "Unfortunately, these are fundamentally naive people with a very childish view of the world."
Hmm. Anyone else sense a little hostility from the for-profit security industry...?
Slashdot Mirror
I mean w/CSS...duh..
W
Was this encrypted w/DeCSS?
W
Me too.
But realize this-- the RIAA's spin will claim that any falloff in revenue is due to piracy, not a boycott-- hence their need for the copy protection.
W
Does anyone remember a couple years back when they were launching the Cassini satellite? There was a huge movement to stop the launch because the Cassini had radioactive fuel, which in an accident above the earth (either in the initial launch or the "boomerang" across the planet) could potentially threaten millions of earth lives for centuries to come.
NASA at the time said that there were safety features that made an accident virtually impossible.
I wonder now, considering the fuckups w/the various Mars missions and this $825m satellite, whether they should be allowed to continue using plutonium fuel...
Thoughts? Are these protesters paranoid or do they have a valid point?
W
As soon as locked DVDs move into the public domain, DeCSS suddenly has a very legitimate use-- to permit access to "free" content.
The supporters of this bill are also working to see that stuff doesn't ever elevate to the public domain.
But I wonder: Wouldn't it just take ONE copyright holder who's previously locked a DVD with CSS to say "AS OF NOW, My movie is now in the public domain" to totally legitimize DeCSS? It would no longer pass the "solely to circumvent protection of copyrighted works" test.
On this view, copyright expiration and/or the potential for voluntary relicensing may legitimize every single anti-DRM tool.
Has this been discussed before?
W
although, judging from the histories of Geek Marches, they usually do more harm than good.
I think "Consumer" might be better than "User"...
I don't know if this has any relevency (I haven't really looked at the patent) but a ton of online games used to rank users back in the day on Bulletin Boards on the Apple ][ and match them against each other. These include role playing games as well as simple online video games. (I myself wrote a few online text-based video games that ranked users in like 1985)
There was also a bulletin board system called Proving Grounds that was basically a multiplayer adventure game played online that matched you up with people of your own skill level to do battle. Not with a web server, but the idea was the same.
As I recall, numerous MUDs would have entry levels for new users to get their skill levels up to the point they could go where all the regular users were.
If any networked game says something like "is this your first time here?" and then puts you in a different game with other users as users with preset accounts, wouldn't that be prior art for this patent?
W
It did no such thing.
Yes it did!
Here is the passage to which I think you refer:
"The Gecko rendering engine at the heart of the Mozilla Web browser is scheduled to replace Microsoft's Internet Explorer as AOL's default browser [...] in the 8.0 version of AOL's client software."
There you go...
Emphasis mine. For those playing at home, you may want to note two things:
1. "scheduled" != "will"
"scheduled" pretty much == "will"
2. this is not an official announcement from AOL
This is true, however it does quote several AOL engineers. I never claimed that this was an official report from AOL. I said (for those of you following at home) that " Newsforge has reported"...which it has.
Please don't fan the flames of speculation any higher. I would suggest taking a conservative approach to "news" pieces such as these in the future. Then again, why should you listen to me?
You are right that this has not yet been confirmed by AOL in a press release, however I linked to the story and only made a statement about what Newsforge was reporting-- and I stand by that. I think "is scheduled to use" is close enough to "will use" for the purposes of my post, much as "Mozilla 1.0 will be released soon" and "Mozilla 1.0 is scheduled to be released soon" are taken by normal readers to be equivalent. By "will" I mean "is scheduled to" and if there's any confusion you can read the article. I did, after all provide the link.
If you're worried about "blowing" the deal by spreading the news, that's another concern, but unless I read something to the contrary, I presume this was leaked with reason or at least that no one at AOL cares all that much.
W
There's not only that, but Newsforge has reported that the new 8.0 version of AOL will use Gecko (the rendering engine in Mozilla) rather than IE!
W
I'm frantically searching for a page I remember seeing on one of the apple rumor sites saying that OS X 10.2 was going to have a 10% across-the-board speed increase due to Apple's custom improvements to the GCC compiler for PPC...
Anyone know where this link is or more about this?
W
The LA Times also ran a story today about the erosion of civil liberties following the Sept 11 attacks.
W
Good to know ;)
W
From what I recall, there was some discussion about the on2's vp# formats in terms of how free they are. As I remember, there were some limitations and restrictions on using the format (one had to do with keeping all encoders file-compatible with the standard.) and I think they charge for commercial uses of vp4 and vp5 or something....
Does anyone with more experience analysing legalese know how VP3.2 license stands up as "free/open" software?
W
What would be a nice addition is to have the program automatically generate a short MP3 of the touchtones for the contact telephone number.
W
I've always thought you could use some kind of distributed system to indicate when commercials are on, so you can stop recording.
So if like 90% of the users in your area say there's a commercial going, drop some kind of "commercial start/stop" marker.
You could do the same thing w/listings-- compile the TV guide the same way the CDDB was originally populated, ie everyone contributes a tiny part and everyone benefits.
"Inverse kinimatics" was added to such modeling/rendering programs as SoftImage back in the early 90s. You could "drop" stuff and have it bounce around or blow in the wind or act like jello or whatever. Yes, even fall down stairs.
You just create your model and connect the "bones" (fundimental objects that move) via articulated joints that could swivel in any direction you specify. Then determine what forces are acting on it (gravity or wind for example) and stuff like how the objects interact (do they bounce? or stick?) and then just hit "play" and off it goes...
What's the big deal here?
Sounds like DeCSS has a very legitimate and legal use-- unencrypting matured public domain works.
W
Second: While digital projection is pretty good, digital acquisition has a long, long, long way to go before it catches up to film. Even the manufacturers will tell you that. CCD's are simply not capable of producing the dynamic range that film does. Video formats are not currently capable of reproducing the range that film does. In projection this is not a big issue, because there is enough range to look good. But in production this is a huge issue. There are many scenes that simply cannot be captured pleasantly on video (daylight exteriors are the hardest) because there is simply too much of a brightness difference between the subject (that you want correctly exposed) and the brightest elements in the frame (like the sky). This is a problem that will take a long time to overcome. For this reason I think that the most viable chain in the medium-term future will be to shoot on film, transfer to digital (files -- not HD-video -- HD is too limited both in terms of resolution and color gamut), and do digital post.
Yeah, I know I kinda diverged from projection to acquisition a bit. I guess what I'm saying is that projection is more or less there-- it looks great-- but in production as well, money will be saved (although Kodak will argue not that much) by acquiring on video. And I think they're a lot closer than you say-- yeah, video's lattitude isn't 11 stops yet, the aesthetic is slightly different, but I kinda like the lack of grain and the better colors. It's not film, but it's.. something else.
Video technology is always improving and becoming less expensive and the film-look processes are getting much better too.
Will film ever completely disappear? I don't think so. Some filmmakers will continue to use it, no doubt. But clearly video is moving in to replace it in a lot of areas. And they're (Bamboozled, Session 9, Series 7, Star Wars II, How High (so I hear), Time Code, etc.) coming to a theater near you.
Then there are movies like "Oh Brother Where Art Thou" that was shot on film, then transferred 100% to digital to be edited and processed, and then transferred back to film...
W
I have seen quite a few digitally projected films with both major projection systems over the years at the local AMC including Toy Story 2, Tarzan, Star Wars I, Monsters Inc, and others.
The absence of scratches are immediately apparent from the second the films begins. They are so jarringly clean that it takes a couple seconds to get used to it. Tarzan in particular was amazing, like looking into an animated window.
In fact, the most distracting thing about the digital experience has been the annoying FILM GRAIN in Star Wars. Well, of course, there was the crappiness of the movie itself, which was worse, but anyway...
Yes, you can make out the regularly-shaped square pixels in digital projection, but only if you look for it, and only when there is a high-contrast between bright and dark areas, such as when titles are superimposed over a black background. These pixels at least are regularly spaced and steady, as opposed to the jittery "dance" of film grain, which is omnipresent in film. Once I went from a clean screening of Toy Story 2 to another viewing of it on film, the grain really bothered me.
Aside from that, I found the colors to be brighter and more vivid than film with deep blacks and bright whites and shades of orange and blue that I just hadn't seen projected before. And there is no distracting 24 fps flicker-- it's hard to explain, but it's something like the difference between watching a flickering CRT vs. the steady image of an LCD.
The only real advantage digital offers is that the print won't get worse over time, but how long are prints in the theater for now anyway? A month?
Well first off, in major cities that may be true. However, from what I understand, the 2nd run cities and smaller towns get the prints after they've run through the projector dozens of times.
Face it, film breaks, film is scratched. Film must be spliced together when it breaks. Film goes out of sync...
Resolution-wise it's difficult to measure film grain count vs. pixel count because video offers anti-aliasing and other tricks to improve the image.
The advantage of digital for the studios is that it's cheaper. Films open far wider now than they ever used to, and play for shorter periods of time, and all those prints cost more money for the studio and eat into their profits. It doesn't matter that DLP projectors only have 1280x1024 resolution (at least the ones that theaters use), they save them money in the long run, so the studios love them.
It's not just the prints-- movies shot on high-end (Lucas-level) video are (in theory) much cheaper than film. Every bad shot in film is wasted negative. Tape stock is relatively cheap in comparison.
You save money on raw film stock. You save money on processing. You save money on creating workprint and answer prints when color-balancing (timing) the film. Then, yeah, you save money on the final prints, you save money on postage having to to distribute heavy cases of film to all your exhibitors. You don't have to worry about film jamming in the gate of your camera or breaking in the lab...
Editing-wise, digital video is far simpler. No keycode to link to timecode (if you've ever had to deal with 3-2 pulldown or audio sync issues when editing film on video or a non-linear editor, you'll know what I'm talking about) No 24/30 fps conversions. Color correction and effects can be easily added in the original medium without losing quality. No need to worry about costly optical effects or negative duping if you wanna use a shot more than once.
And of course, the quality of the original image is the same quality of what you see on the screen, no matter how many times the image is composited, manipulated, copied, re-edited, etc. With film, you are guaranteed to be seeing at least a third generation copy of the negative. (it goes from the negative to an internegative to a print... and that's without any optical effects added, which may require more losses in generations)
For an independent filmmaker, the costs of shooting on film can be prohibitive. As video gets cheaper and better, there's no denying its appeal to lower budget projects.
Roger Ebert has written about this and has a great column about a new film technology that shoots at 48 fps instead of 24 fps, makes all motion look much more fluid, prevents annoying film artifacts you'll see, and is acually an improvement over current 35mm film, instead of a downgrade like digital is.
Ebert's been pushing that 48 fps film for years now. 48 fps means the film is running through the camera/projector twice as fast. If the image size is the same, that means you're burning film twice as fast, which means your film costs are twice as high.
I've heard that it's cool, but because of the expense (and the fact that it's still a physical, mechanical technology) I just don't see that ever being anything more than a novelty.
For people wondering, Lucas shot Episode II using special new Sony HD Cameras that shoot at 1080p, 24 fps, and use Panavision lenses. They are incredibly nice, the best DV cameras out there, but don't have the resolution that film does no matter how advanced they are.
Like I said, it's sort of comparing apples and oranges. From my totally subjective point of view, the digitally projected Toy Story 2 was VASTLY superior in terms of color, clarity, and overall image quality to the film version.
I think stuff like CGI films that went straight from the computer to digital projection have been the best of what I've seen so far. Because, yeah, I'll admit it-- film does have a certain quality that as yet digital projection hasn't really captured. Kind of a surreal, magical, hard-to-describe look. And you can do a lot of cool shit chemically with film.
But DV has its own qualities that are waiting to be explored. And I really think thatit's not gonna be too much long before they get the video to look and act like film. Most of the video we see looks crappy because it's shot like it's on video. But I think that cinematographers have a whole new world to explore because believe it or not, you can actually light a DV project WELL if you want to.
For those of you interested in checking out a "film" shot on 24P DV, USA Films released a movie not too long ago called Session 9 with David Caruso (yeah, yeah. I know). I haven't seen it on DVD yet (saw a 35mm transfer), but it's among the very first films out using super-high end video acquisition. If you can't wait until Star Wars and wanna see some 24p stuff, check it out. You may change your mind about what's around the corner.
W
We received a note saying that the BSA was authorized by our software suppliers to perform this audit and refusal was a violation of our software license.
I'm not sure I get this. If you pirated the software, you didn't sign a license with anyone, did you? And if you signed the license, then that means you bought it, right?
Unless I guess maybe they're assuming you made more than the limited number of copies or whatever. Hmm. I dunno, something there seems wrong.
In any event, if you didn't sign any EULA but they think you're pirating something, how can they justify a raid?
W
All of the hardware can be had for well under $100, and the software is Free as in GPL and can't legally be sold at a profit.
Huh? Why not?
W
What I find most amazing is he models the molecules on like a Mac Plus, if I remember right (haven't seen it since it came out)...
Imagine what he coulda done w/a g4. You say "Hello, Computer" and it actually listens!
W
I see some posts from people talking about DocBook as if it's an application-- it's not. Docbook is a DTD (Document Type Declaration): it's a specification of tags used to markup documentation, much like HTML's DTD (http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40/sgml/dtd.html) describe those tags used to mark up a web page.
.CSS just like a web page.
.css file to say how to display each of the tags, convert/format them into whatever you want: .eps, .pdf, .html, etc.
So, like, documentation written using the DocBook DTD will look something like a web page, only the tags that surround the content are specific stuff you'd find in documentations. Some of the tags look like this:
<book>
<chapter>
<title>
<para>
<note>
<procedure>
<step>
<userinput>
<figure>
etc.
All you really need in order to write documentation in DocBook is an editor that can handle SGML or XML and can use DTDs. Files marked up using DocBook are simple SGML (or XML) text files, and you can alter how they are displayed or printed with
So you can have a single source for all your documentation, such as a manual for your software, and output from docbook to any other format-- PDF, HTML, XML, or print.
There are lots of open source programs out there for writing XML files that let you import a DTD, some of which are specifically geared towards Docbook. Other applications take files marked up using DocBook and, along with a
W
Russ Cooper, who moderates a popular security mailing list and works for security firm TruSecure, said Conover's actions are irresponsible. "I think it's better to provide details of the exploit and then let other people write the actual code," Cooper said. "Unfortunately, these are fundamentally naive people with a very childish view of the world."
Hmm. Anyone else sense a little hostility from the for-profit security industry...?
Thank you! I couldn't remember the name of it, but the Proving Grounds is absolutely the one I was thinking of .
W