Higher frame rates are going to look like video, but at the same time it will also allow for better special effects in the long run. People complaining about the "video" look simply because they associate it with "cheap" TV movies are just going to have to suck it up and accept that it's the future, IMHO.
And notice this vote was actually just short of the 67% majority needed to override a veto. So assuming Obama vetoes it, it would seem it would fail in the re-vote.
Does anyone think that maybe the fact that there are 7 times as many people in the world today than there was only 200 years ago could be a contributor to global warming? 7 billion people breathing out carbon dioxide...
Numerous states have passed laws illegalizing such things on their local level. (Anti-Real-ID laws). The TSA is trying to volley back by saying "then none of your citizens will be able to fly if we do enact Real-ID". But so many states have passed the Anti laws that Real-ID seems to be on the back burner for now.
I'm not saying I personally support assassination. I'm just saying that once people decide they have nothing to lose, is when the government will lose. You can't threaten jail if people aren't afraid of jail. We just saw it happen in other countries just this past year.
...and it's a good thing, because it means things may finally get done.
I have seen repeated calls for assassination of government officials on this thread.
Such a call is not only a crime in the USA, it's a felony.
It means that more and more of us are deciding we have nothing to lose. If that sentiment ends up spreading to the populace at large, the government has lost.
Which leads to another problem: The vast majority of third-party voters are progressive, forward thinking people, however, the third parties don't even make a blip on the radar of the average voter due to their reduced media presence, since they don't get the campaign grants that the GOP and the Democrats do, and the law actually *prevents* them from getting the federal grants as well. Basically, you have to have a good showing to get the federal grants, but on the other hand, you need grants to get enough of a media presence to get a good showing, and big donors won't support third parties because they see them as 'losers' right out of the gate. It's a nice little Catch-22 the two main parties made for themselves and their power.
All this means is that telling people to vote third party ends up translating to telling them to make sure the GOP wins. The majority of conservative people won't vote third party because "I've always voted GOP"...they're simply being, well, conservative.
The law needs to be changed to make sure EVERYONE can spend the same amount in their campaigns, so we have an equal and level playing field, but unfortunately, the Citizens United decision killed any prospect of that happening.
At least for the time being, our military force is still one of the strongest on the planet
Yes, and more and more of them are starting to wonder exactly what it is they're fighting for, if our freedoms are just getting stripped away one by one. The government may just have an unexpected enemy if they push things too far.
But the problem with most Republicans is they try to shove religiously-crafted discriminatory laws down our throats....so the place to defeat Feinstein would be the *primary*, not the general election.
If UMG wins on their defense (that the automated system is not a DMCA notice), then YouTube can take down their automated system and require content rights holders to submit DMCA takedown requests in writing, right?
But in this situation, she didn't even produce it, she just sang on it. In the hypothetical situation, Coulton would be the producer. That's effectively the same situation we have with Mega. Mega (or indie entities hired by them) wrote and produced the song and video. The RIAA artists simply appeared on it.
This isn't so much about YouTube as it is about UMG abusing the DMCA. While you are correct that YouTube has the right to remove videos they feel are troublesome, UMG did NOT have the right to issue a DMCA takedown notice. Abuse of the DMCA is a crime. That's what the outrage is about.
1) An independent entity wrote the song
2) An independent entity produced the song
3) All the label artists did was sing on it (and even then, only 3 artists did any actual "singing"). They did not contribute in any other way except their voice. They were simply hired to SING. They themselves did not put forth any *creative* input into the song. They did not write any of it, or produce any of it.
Slashdot Mirror
The vulnerability is in MS Office for Mac. Don't run MS Office, and you're safe from this particular malware.
This is on MS to fix, not Apple.
Please RTFA before saying this is a "MacOS vulnerability"
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/ is apparently what they're using now.
(crap...didn't catch my typo until after I hit submit O.o)
Actually, President has said he's veto it
Higher frame rates are going to look like video, but at the same time it will also allow for better special effects in the long run. People complaining about the "video" look simply because they associate it with "cheap" TV movies are just going to have to suck it up and accept that it's the future, IMHO.
And notice this vote was actually just short of the 67% majority needed to override a veto. So assuming Obama vetoes it, it would seem it would fail in the re-vote.
Did you have to throw an ad hominem Apple attack in there? It wasn't even relevant! -.-
No, this one's real...I Google searched and it's being reported in numerous news outlets, including a video story from WSBT-TV
Does anyone think that maybe the fact that there are 7 times as many people in the world today than there was only 200 years ago could be a contributor to global warming? 7 billion people breathing out carbon dioxide...
The only way to kill illegal file sharing is to kill the internet.
;)
The only way to kill the internet and prevent a new one from taking its place is a worldwide EMP, which would return us all to a "simpler time".
There is no other way.
In fact, I resurrected my old blue ribbon graphic from 1996 and put it back on my website with a link to the EFF. :)
Good point. When was the last time you heard of someone complaining about illegal immigration coming from Canada?
Yes, it exists. But you rarely ever hear about it.
Numerous states have passed laws illegalizing such things on their local level. (Anti-Real-ID laws). The TSA is trying to volley back by saying "then none of your citizens will be able to fly if we do enact Real-ID". But so many states have passed the Anti laws that Real-ID seems to be on the back burner for now.
I'm not saying I personally support assassination. I'm just saying that once people decide they have nothing to lose, is when the government will lose. You can't threaten jail if people aren't afraid of jail. We just saw it happen in other countries just this past year.
...and it's a good thing, because it means things may finally get done.
I have seen repeated calls for assassination of government officials on this thread.
Such a call is not only a crime in the USA, it's a felony.
It means that more and more of us are deciding we have nothing to lose. If that sentiment ends up spreading to the populace at large, the government has lost.
Which leads to another problem: The vast majority of third-party voters are progressive, forward thinking people, however, the third parties don't even make a blip on the radar of the average voter due to their reduced media presence, since they don't get the campaign grants that the GOP and the Democrats do, and the law actually *prevents* them from getting the federal grants as well. Basically, you have to have a good showing to get the federal grants, but on the other hand, you need grants to get enough of a media presence to get a good showing, and big donors won't support third parties because they see them as 'losers' right out of the gate. It's a nice little Catch-22 the two main parties made for themselves and their power.
All this means is that telling people to vote third party ends up translating to telling them to make sure the GOP wins. The majority of conservative people won't vote third party because "I've always voted GOP"...they're simply being, well, conservative.
The law needs to be changed to make sure EVERYONE can spend the same amount in their campaigns, so we have an equal and level playing field, but unfortunately, the Citizens United decision killed any prospect of that happening.
At least for the time being, our military force is still one of the strongest on the planet
Yes, and more and more of them are starting to wonder exactly what it is they're fighting for, if our freedoms are just getting stripped away one by one. The government may just have an unexpected enemy if they push things too far.
But the problem with most Republicans is they try to shove religiously-crafted discriminatory laws down our throats....so the place to defeat Feinstein would be the *primary*, not the general election.
...unless it inconveniences *them*... which it *will*, eventually.
If UMG wins on their defense (that the automated system is not a DMCA notice), then YouTube can take down their automated system and require content rights holders to submit DMCA takedown requests in writing, right?
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2011/12/universal-megaupload-video/
The artists haven't *denied* involvement... Seriously, if it *was* manipulation, wouldn't the artists be quick to refute their involvement?
But in this situation, she didn't even produce it, she just sang on it. In the hypothetical situation, Coulton would be the producer. That's effectively the same situation we have with Mega. Mega (or indie entities hired by them) wrote and produced the song and video. The RIAA artists simply appeared on it.
Doesn't explain the 3 label artists that actually SANG on the song....
This isn't so much about YouTube as it is about UMG abusing the DMCA. While you are correct that YouTube has the right to remove videos they feel are troublesome, UMG did NOT have the right to issue a DMCA takedown notice. Abuse of the DMCA is a crime. That's what the outrage is about.
Basically...here's the similarities...
1) An independent entity wrote the song
2) An independent entity produced the song
3) All the label artists did was sing on it (and even then, only 3 artists did any actual "singing"). They did not contribute in any other way except their voice. They were simply hired to SING. They themselves did not put forth any *creative* input into the song. They did not write any of it, or produce any of it.
Therefore, UMG should have NO claim!