The reason transcoding is really necessary is because very high quality encodings can't be done realtime. MythTV has the options to capture uncompressed or capture to MPEG4, but I prefer capturing to MPEG2, editing out commercials, then encode. You can't do 2-pass encoding until the source material has finished encoding..
plus a few Pixar sequels in the works at Sequel Studios
Three words: Direct to video.
I hate Disney's sequels with a passion.. but the bad news is that the direct to video sequels are very very profitable for Disney. They tend to cost just over $15m to make and regularly generate $50m+. Are they embarassing? Yes. Are they money-makers for Disney? Yes.
As far as I'm aware, no major Linux distribution currently supports anything close to the same level of centralised configuration, so you'd need users to apt-get (or whatever) updates themselves on each machine rather than deploying a patch everywhere automatically via the IT guys.
Today at work I needed to push out an update to an in-house application for all our Linux workstations. So I copied the rpm to the yum repository... and that's it. Every night every desktop syncs itself to the packages listing. If I want to install.. say, firefox on all machines, I download the rpm, put it in the repository, add it to the list of packages to be installed by default.. that's it again.
Desktop linux has a number of faults we could point out, but centralized management can be quite painless.
Saddam was a socialist dictator. Osama is on record, repeatedly, as calling Saddam a socialst, infidel, dog. They hated each other.
That was just the cover story they reported to the press. World Weekly News reported before the Iraq invasion that Osama and Saddam had a torrid love affair. I hope we can shake down Saddam enough to get him to give up the location of their secret love nest, which is likely where Osasma is currently hiding.
First and most importantly - nobody was talking to you.
You made a public post on Slashdot, thus, you were talking "to" him and anyone else reading. I shouldn't have to explain this, it's not exactly a brilliant observation.
They are committed to delivering the electoral votes to the president. And wouldn't you know it - whoever gets the most votes will be the president.
John Kerry is not the president. George Bush is. He did not say "future president," the CEO said "president," which refers to the current president. This was in a letter to Republican contributors, it's pretty clear what his message was intended to be, though I agree it's hardly a stunning indictment of conspiracy.
I used to think the same thing. Then I found out that when the shit does hit the fan, your rates go up. Now you're paying for the shit/fan before, and after it hit. Something just doens't add up.
I'll second that.. I had pretty reasonable rates before I got into an accident.. afterwards the rates went sky-high, and in just a few years I've already paid back the damage caused by the difference alone. What a racket.
This is similar to the MS Security Manager running Firefox news bit. Because Jack Valenti owns and enjoys a TiVo, means he condones all aspects of the technology? No, it's more likely Jack Valenti likes to use a TiVo as a new-fangled VCR.
A little ironic since not only did he once proclaim the VCR was similar to the Boston Strangler, but he also recently claimed that his arguements in that case had been proven correct.
If I build exact replicas of the cognac glasses using my own materials, and then give these replicas away, I won't get sued by the Glassblowing Industry Association of America.
Yes you will.
That was a bad example especially since it doesn't reflect the situation anyway. The legal problems with GPLed DVD players hasn't been that they're exact replicas of commercial software DVD players (because they're not). A better example would have been "If I look at the cognac glasses and then build my own cognac glasses which are different but serve the same function, and I give those away, I won't get sued by the Glassblowing Industry Association of America." Though maybe the original poster and I are getting confused by the analogy, I was seeing cognac glasses to be DVD players and physical discs, and the cognac to be the actual DVD material. Unclear.
Keep in mind, the basic tenets are: IP owners get to say what happens with their IP.
Here's where the arguement gets a little squishy. The above is true not because the law says that IP owners get to determine all post-sale uses, but because the law now says that it is illegal to circumvent an "effective access control." It's clear that most of those who voted for the DMCA (which was just about everyone, sadly) thought that this was simply to stop piracy and wasn't aimed at preventing the backups that copyright law had originally allowed. That of course assumes they thought of this at all, the anecdotes I've read said there wasn't a lot of discussion. Regardless, this was a very round-a-bout way of allowing IP owners to get away with whatever they want. Not because "IP owners get to say what happens with their IP," since if the IP doesn't have fancy access controls at all (like with audio cds) then what the IP owner says doesn't matter. If I want to rip a CD into MP3 format and put it on my iPod, the music company exec could jump up and down angrily as much as they want, but as long as I'm not distributing it, it's within my fair-use rights. They could even write "DO NOT RIP THIS DISC" on the case.. but it's not legally enforcable. Start putting encryption on there.. and it's illegal to break the encryption, but only because breaking the encryption is illegal.
Wait, you're suggesting that Bush's plan was to invade Iraq so the terrorists will spend their time killing our soldiers in Iraq instead of attacking the US?
Whether "it's working" or not is a point that's impossible to prove.
Wasn't Bush the one who said he wants to take the fight against terrorism back to foreign shores?
Frankly, I don't care if your incentive is taken away. I think it's much more important that society be free than you make a profit.
No, you're demonstrably wrong here. The past few hundred years speak well of the importance of copyright.
Anyway, art for art's sake, not for money.
Art for art's sake is nice until you have to eat and pay the rent.
We might get less art, but it would be better quality.
Quality is not somehow improved by the artist receiving less money, unless you're one of the tiring elitists who feel the only art of value is made by those who can't go full-time to support themselves.
Maybe people do not see Apple DRM as being evil because the majority of the people who use it feel they still can do what they want with the content they purchased. Do you own an iPod? Have you been encumbered by their DRM in any way?
I have. For example, I bought the two Danny Elfman tracks from the Spiderman 2 soundtrack from iTunes. I figured I could then just put them onto my iPod, right? I'd done it before.. didn't work. Wouldn't let me drag the files to my iPod. I tried deauthorizing and reauthorizing the computer.. still no go. I could drag other songs from my library, just not the drmed ones. The problem is my iPod wasn't updated to the latest version that was required by iTunes. Why didn't I update the iPod? Because I couldn't. It won't update. It detects that an update is available and asks to install it, then unmounts the iPod and complains to me that it's unmounted. I suspect that the iPod is Windows formatted and I use it on a Mac. But the iTunes tracks are on my iPod now. How? I downloaded FairPlay and used it to strip out the DRM, then copied as normal. Reinitializing the iPod would be a pain and I'm not going to settle for burning to CD and ripping it again.
I realize my vote doesn't count a huge deal (your vote always counts, just not very much), but I still vote because it gives me the right to complain about the politicions that are elected. If you don't vote, then complaining about who other people voted in when you expended no effort yourself to do your civic duty smacks of hypocrasy. If you don't vote, you don't matter.
He wants to back shows up permanently to DVD, and that has never been allowed under fair use, only time shifting. Time shifting is different from a permanent archive that can be watched over and over again. The former was allowed from the Betamax decision, the latter hasn't. Until recently though there was no way to allow one while disallowing the other.
The encryption was put there so that only authorized players could play it, NOT to keep it from being copied.
Intention is irrelevant, what matters is what the law says are the options. Encryption: imperfect method of preventing copying, because consumer burners can't burn a full copy. Encryption method does not have to be perfect to be considered an access control under the DMCA.
The senate can't make it illegal, this would be struck down by the Supreme Court. What was (and still is) being discussed is amending the Constitution to make flag-burning illegal, something that I think has little chance of making it all the way.
Ok, this is just totally bogus. The citizens of Utah tend to be quite conservative, thus agreeing with many, if not most, of Hatch's proposals.
And yet so many of Hatch's proposals flatly contradict conservative ideals. With the Induce Act, DMCA and many other proposals, Hatch looks a lot more like Tipper Gore than a "conservative Republican." Since when has limiting personal rights at the request of Hollywood been a Republican ideal?
Easy? I think the punishment fit just about right. Her crimes were pretty minor compaired to most other white color criminals, and there are only two reasons people were calling for her head:
*) She is an overachiever, and people were naturally jealous and hateful of such things. Plus, feminists hated the successful domestic.
*) With all the corporate shennigans going on recently, they had to go after SOMEONE. It might as well be the person doing minor stuff and who has no polical power rather than the well-connected corportate crook who screwed millions out of their retirement.
There's also the "good movie by a famous director about a serious subject" exception. Specifically, Schindler's List being shown uncut on (I believe) ABC.
The whole argument that because modchips let you make backups of your games makes them wrong is just... well... it's very confusing to me. I can't give an answer, because I don't even understand the premise.
The biggest problem there is that it's impossible to allow people to make legal backups while eliminating the ability to make illegal copies.
Legal backups don't affect the media companies' bottom lines very much. The companies certainly won't save any money, they probably get a trickle of revenue from people repurchasing damaged cds/dvds. Illegal copies affect their bottom lines in obvious ways. Therefore, the media/gaming companies have no problem banning legal copies if it hinders making illegal copies as well.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate Disney's sequels with a passion.. but the bad news is that the direct to video sequels are very very profitable for Disney. They tend to cost just over $15m to make and regularly generate $50m+. Are they embarassing? Yes. Are they money-makers for Disney? Yes.
Today at work I needed to push out an update to an in-house application for all our Linux workstations. So I copied the rpm to the yum repository... and that's it. Every night every desktop syncs itself to the packages listing. If I want to install.. say, firefox on all machines, I download the rpm, put it in the repository, add it to the list of packages to be installed by default.. that's it again.
Desktop linux has a number of faults we could point out, but centralized management can be quite painless.
That was just the cover story they reported to the press. World Weekly News reported before the Iraq invasion that Osama and Saddam had a torrid love affair. I hope we can shake down Saddam enough to get him to give up the location of their secret love nest, which is likely where Osasma is currently hiding.
You made a public post on Slashdot, thus, you were talking "to" him and anyone else reading. I shouldn't have to explain this, it's not exactly a brilliant observation.
They are committed to delivering the electoral votes to the president. And wouldn't you know it - whoever gets the most votes will be the president.
John Kerry is not the president. George Bush is. He did not say "future president," the CEO said "president," which refers to the current president. This was in a letter to Republican contributors, it's pretty clear what his message was intended to be, though I agree it's hardly a stunning indictment of conspiracy.
I'll second that.. I had pretty reasonable rates before I got into an accident.. afterwards the rates went sky-high, and in just a few years I've already paid back the damage caused by the difference alone. What a racket.
A little ironic since not only did he once proclaim the VCR was similar to the Boston Strangler, but he also recently claimed that his arguements in that case had been proven correct.
Yes you will.
That was a bad example especially since it doesn't reflect the situation anyway. The legal problems with GPLed DVD players hasn't been that they're exact replicas of commercial software DVD players (because they're not). A better example would have been "If I look at the cognac glasses and then build my own cognac glasses which are different but serve the same function, and I give those away, I won't get sued by the Glassblowing Industry Association of America." Though maybe the original poster and I are getting confused by the analogy, I was seeing cognac glasses to be DVD players and physical discs, and the cognac to be the actual DVD material. Unclear.
Here's where the arguement gets a little squishy. The above is true not because the law says that IP owners get to determine all post-sale uses, but because the law now says that it is illegal to circumvent an "effective access control." It's clear that most of those who voted for the DMCA (which was just about everyone, sadly) thought that this was simply to stop piracy and wasn't aimed at preventing the backups that copyright law had originally allowed. That of course assumes they thought of this at all, the anecdotes I've read said there wasn't a lot of discussion. Regardless, this was a very round-a-bout way of allowing IP owners to get away with whatever they want. Not because "IP owners get to say what happens with their IP," since if the IP doesn't have fancy access controls at all (like with audio cds) then what the IP owner says doesn't matter. If I want to rip a CD into MP3 format and put it on my iPod, the music company exec could jump up and down angrily as much as they want, but as long as I'm not distributing it, it's within my fair-use rights. They could even write "DO NOT RIP THIS DISC" on the case.. but it's not legally enforcable. Start putting encryption on there.. and it's illegal to break the encryption, but only because breaking the encryption is illegal.
In all, it amounts to the same results.
Wasn't Bush the one who said he wants to take the fight against terrorism back to foreign shores?
No, you're demonstrably wrong here. The past few hundred years speak well of the importance of copyright.
Anyway, art for art's sake, not for money.
Art for art's sake is nice until you have to eat and pay the rent.
We might get less art, but it would be better quality.
Quality is not somehow improved by the artist receiving less money, unless you're one of the tiring elitists who feel the only art of value is made by those who can't go full-time to support themselves.
I have. For example, I bought the two Danny Elfman tracks from the Spiderman 2 soundtrack from iTunes. I figured I could then just put them onto my iPod, right? I'd done it before.. didn't work. Wouldn't let me drag the files to my iPod. I tried deauthorizing and reauthorizing the computer.. still no go. I could drag other songs from my library, just not the drmed ones. The problem is my iPod wasn't updated to the latest version that was required by iTunes. Why didn't I update the iPod? Because I couldn't. It won't update. It detects that an update is available and asks to install it, then unmounts the iPod and complains to me that it's unmounted. I suspect that the iPod is Windows formatted and I use it on a Mac. But the iTunes tracks are on my iPod now. How? I downloaded FairPlay and used it to strip out the DRM, then copied as normal. Reinitializing the iPod would be a pain and I'm not going to settle for burning to CD and ripping it again.
He wants to back shows up permanently to DVD, and that has never been allowed under fair use, only time shifting. Time shifting is different from a permanent archive that can be watched over and over again. The former was allowed from the Betamax decision, the latter hasn't. Until recently though there was no way to allow one while disallowing the other.
Intention is irrelevant, what matters is what the law says are the options. Encryption: imperfect method of preventing copying, because consumer burners can't burn a full copy. Encryption method does not have to be perfect to be considered an access control under the DMCA.
A sale with "terms of use" is usually a sale, with an unenforcable terms of use.
It appears you need to be educated about The Great Ayn Rand.
And yet so many of Hatch's proposals flatly contradict conservative ideals. With the Induce Act, DMCA and many other proposals, Hatch looks a lot more like Tipper Gore than a "conservative Republican." Since when has limiting personal rights at the request of Hollywood been a Republican ideal?
Easy? I think the punishment fit just about right. Her crimes were pretty minor compaired to most other white color criminals, and there are only two reasons people were calling for her head:
*) She is an overachiever, and people were naturally jealous and hateful of such things. Plus, feminists hated the successful domestic.
*) With all the corporate shennigans going on recently, they had to go after SOMEONE. It might as well be the person doing minor stuff and who has no polical power rather than the well-connected corportate crook who screwed millions out of their retirement.
Do they really do this? For no charge?
The games are free, but there is a shipping and handling fee that runs from $30-$50, depending on the game.
The biggest problem there is that it's impossible to allow people to make legal backups while eliminating the ability to make illegal copies.
Legal backups don't affect the media companies' bottom lines very much. The companies certainly won't save any money, they probably get a trickle of revenue from people repurchasing damaged cds/dvds. Illegal copies affect their bottom lines in obvious ways. Therefore, the media/gaming companies have no problem banning legal copies if it hinders making illegal copies as well.
You are mistaken! At least the last time I used Mozilla it had a spell checker..