You shouldn't need to recompress, since BD and HD-DVD both support the same formats, all you need to do is strip the DRM
The problem is that many of the HD DVD movies use more space than is available on blank Blu-Ray discs, so they need to be compressed a bit further (like is done for some DVDs to fit on DVD5 blanks)
Given the distribution has already happened, they are legally obligated to distribute the source code to the steam "stub" present in their dosbox application. Failing that, they are guilty of some serious copyright infringment, and statutory damages can be huge.
*sighs*
No, they are not obligated to distribute the source. They violated a copyright license. Now they can be sued by the copyright owners.
The owners might be content with Valve releasing the source for their modified version, and they might not. That's part of the negotiations, and neither you nor I know anything about the details of that.
Someone just has to write a ps3 cell code to do the key guessing just like folding@home, 100,000 pirates, and whammo, it would be cracked really fast
Nope. Assume that all cores can test one key per clock cycle (implausible, but usefull as a max), and that the clock frequency is 4 GHz. Then one ps3 can exhaust about 36 bits of keyspace per second. A billion ps3s would add another 30 bits. The keyspace that AACS uses for the AES is 128 bits, so the ps3s would need on average 2^61 seconds to brute-force a key. That's slightly more than 73 billion years. Brute force won't do it, hence Muslix' and the other's attempts to find other ways to attack AACS.
Could anyone care to explain what the difference is (apart from the codec used) between this and the 10GB 1080i version of Serenity that has been available on The Pirate Bay for ages?
1. Representation schemes that are designed with specific knowledge of the type of data that is going to be represented compress better than a general purpose compression algorithm..
Yes, but not by much, unless you count destructive compression. HTML and other textual formats compress very well using general-purpose compressors (as one would expect). See for instance Keith Packard and James Gettys' LBX postmortem - ssh's built-in gzip compression is close enough to LBX's specialized X11 compression for it not to matter.
2. Broswers don't accept zipped pages, so the file would have to be manually unzipped before presentation to the broswer.
3. Broswers could be modified for either a binary HTML or to accept a zipped page, but there would be more run-time processing involved to unzip than there would be to natively support a binary HTML.
The performance impact is small enough for most people not to be aware that they are already using it. Unless you're on an ancient browser, you already are using it yourself - Slashdot has used gzip encoding for ages.
But perhaps I should expand on my original point ("man gzip" might have been a bit terse;-) ): textual formats (roughly meaning files in some ascii-like encoding that use letters and punctuation for markup and text for data) are easy to work with, as text files have an astounding tool support. Specialized binary formats usually lack tools for anything beyond basic editing and viewing (wot - no AWK?).
The benefit of specialized binary formats is in parsing speed and file size, but the size part is not that important, since there are lots of good text compressors that let you get almost all the size advantage at almost none of the cost. The only thing left for specialized binary formats is parsing speed, but processing power stopped being the bottle-neck for most systems years ago (now it's about bandwidth, repeating the previous point).
You missed the (imho, of course) best function: you can click on the icons. It's one of those things that when you realise it works you can't understand why it hasn't allways been like that or how you could stand the old way.
The swedish national TV station (funded by every household with a TV) ran a story based on an informant, basicly saying that the minister of justice was running errands for the white house.
Something that is easily missed by those not familiar with the Swedish system is that this is pretty serious even without the US connection. Ministers are not allowed to involve themselves with specific cases here. If Bodström did that, then this may be a opportunity to get rid of him without switching the whole administration.
There's basically just one reason why I try to follow the specs: it's easier to debug layout problems in strict mode than in quirks mode. Always having to second-guess the browser whenever some part of the page ends up slightly off from where it's suposed to be just isn't fun.
As a few others herehave pointed out, validating afterwards might not be the best idea. The HTML Validator plugin for Firefox validates as you go, which makes errors visible directly when they are made (and therefore usually easier to correct).
What lack of unions? I'm a contract programmer, and like most of my co-workers I'm in SIF. Some of the others are in CF, and a few in Jusec. I can't recall ever working for a company that wasn't unionized (I've heard of them, but that's that).
Oh, the article is about the situation in the USA, right? That place is kind of the odd one out in this respect. So, before you start saying that having tech unions is never going to work or will destroy the industry, please remember that it does work and doesn't ruin the industry - in just about every other country. What is it that is so different about the USA that prevents unions from being viable there?
Huh? If the boss doesn't give him his check, he sues and wins very quickly. How would a union get it to him any faster?
By having lawyers on-staff that are specialised in this kind of cases, and aleady paid for by the membership fee.
I just don't get this. There are regularly complaints on/. about companies abusing the employees, but whenever someone brings up the union, everyone goes apeshit. As long as you don't organize, things like this will continue.
This is likely a reference to Safari's new canvas tag, mainly intended for dashboard. A version of it is being specified in the graphics part of the WAHT WG Web Applications 1.0 spec, so you're likely to see it in Mozilla sooner or later
Take the XML and the XSL and transform it into 100% valid XHTML. HTML 4 is deprecated, the standard will not be updated.
As the poster said, they've tried HTML, and didn't like it. I very much doubt that the print quality of XHTML would be any better than HTML. (I don't quite understand either why you're including screen styles for a page that is intended only for printing.)
As for HTML 4 being a dead end, the WHAT WG, a collaboration among developers from most browsers, are defining a set of specifications intended to extend HTML4 in the short term, and serve as a base for a fifth version of HTML later.
Slashdot Mirror
*sighs*
No, they are not obligated to distribute the source. They violated a copyright license. Now they can be sued by the copyright owners.
The owners might be content with Valve releasing the source for their modified version, and they might not. That's part of the negotiations, and neither you nor I know anything about the details of that.
Nope. Assume that all cores can test one key per clock cycle (implausible, but usefull as a max), and that the clock frequency is 4 GHz. Then one ps3 can exhaust about 36 bits of keyspace per second. A billion ps3s would add another 30 bits. The keyspace that AACS uses for the AES is 128 bits, so the ps3s would need on average 2^61 seconds to brute-force a key. That's slightly more than 73 billion years. Brute force won't do it, hence Muslix' and the other's attempts to find other ways to attack AACS.
I see. Good news then =) Thanks!
Could anyone care to explain what the difference is (apart from the codec used) between this and the 10GB 1080i version of Serenity that has been available on The Pirate Bay for ages?
(Back home so I can reply logged in)
Yes, but not by much, unless you count destructive compression. HTML and other textual formats compress very well using general-purpose compressors (as one would expect). See for instance Keith Packard and James Gettys' LBX postmortem - ssh's built-in gzip compression is close enough to LBX's specialized X11 compression for it not to matter.
They do. Mozilla, Opera, and even Internet Explorer.
The performance impact is small enough for most people not to be aware that they are already using it. Unless you're on an ancient browser, you already are using it yourself - Slashdot has used gzip encoding for ages.
But perhaps I should expand on my original point ("man gzip" might have been a bit terse ;-) ): textual formats (roughly meaning files in some ascii-like encoding that use letters and punctuation for markup and text for data) are easy to work with, as text files have an astounding tool support. Specialized binary formats usually lack tools for anything beyond basic editing and viewing (wot - no AWK?).
The benefit of specialized binary formats is in parsing speed and file size, but the size part is not that important, since there are lots of good text compressors that let you get almost all the size advantage at almost none of the cost. The only thing left for specialized binary formats is parsing speed, but processing power stopped being the bottle-neck for most systems years ago (now it's about bandwidth, repeating the previous point).
You missed the (imho, of course) best function: you can click on the icons. It's one of those things that when you realise it works you can't understand why it hasn't allways been like that or how you could stand the old way.
There's basically just one reason why I try to follow the specs: it's easier to debug layout problems in strict mode than in quirks mode. Always having to second-guess the browser whenever some part of the page ends up slightly off from where it's suposed to be just isn't fun.
As a few others herehave pointed out, validating afterwards might not be the best idea. The HTML Validator plugin for Firefox validates as you go, which makes errors visible directly when they are made (and therefore usually easier to correct).
What lack of unions? I'm a contract programmer, and like most of my co-workers I'm in SIF. Some of the others are in CF, and a few in Jusec. I can't recall ever working for a company that wasn't unionized (I've heard of them, but that's that).
Oh, the article is about the situation in the USA, right? That place is kind of the odd one out in this respect. So, before you start saying that having tech unions is never going to work or will destroy the industry, please remember that it does work and doesn't ruin the industry - in just about every other country. What is it that is so different about the USA that prevents unions from being viable there?
The TV might have been expensive, but the DVD player isn't really. I got my 971H for about 190 euro last summer.
The first ones were amusing, but your comment really did make me laugh out loud. Thanks!
Verbing weirds language
By having lawyers on-staff that are specialised in this kind of cases, and aleady paid for by the membership fee.
I just don't get this. There are regularly complaints on /. about companies abusing the employees, but whenever someone brings up the union, everyone goes apeshit. As long as you don't organize, things like this will continue.
So, what do you suggest? That they pass on HD DVD? Unless bluray has better terms that's not going to happen.
720? No one will ever need anything more than an XBOX 640.
What? Didn't they wisely have him beheaded?
Press "Report Bugs to Apple..." under the Safari menu.
This is likely a reference to Safari's new canvas tag, mainly intended for dashboard. A version of it is being specified in the graphics part of the WAHT WG Web Applications 1.0 spec, so you're likely to see it in Mozilla sooner or later
As the poster said, they've tried HTML, and didn't like it. I very much doubt that the print quality of XHTML would be any better than HTML. (I don't quite understand either why you're including screen styles for a page that is intended only for printing.)
As for HTML 4 being a dead end, the WHAT WG, a collaboration among developers from most browsers, are defining a set of specifications intended to extend HTML4 in the short term, and serve as a base for a fifth version of HTML later.