Price will come down. It might cost a thousand dollars today, but in a few years there will be new devices out for half the price, and today's ones will be going on eBay as people upgrade to the new models that do pretty much the same but weigh less.
Given Trump's picks so far? I expect the new head to be either a businessman worth a few hundred million dollars at least, or a former head of an anti-immigration pressure group.
He doesn't have to sorry about impeachment. It would be a humiliation to the Republican party beyond imagining if that happened - they simply cannot allow it, and they have a majority.
"and except for a limited few no one on the right wants to make laws regarding blasphemy. "
Laws, no, but the AFA and their like have been behind a few campaigns to have television series canceled by mass-complaining to the FCC or petitioning advertisers. I only learned of Lucifer because I read an article about them (can't remember just which agency, there are a few) condemning it for blasphemy and calling upon their supporters to file complaints.
"Free market libertarian types don't give a f**k about those examples"
They are also vanishingly rare in politics. Plenty of posers, though.
Right, left... currently they are for most purposes indistinguishable from republican and democrat. It's a consequence of a political system in which there are only two parties with a snowball's hope in hell of winning any election: People have to choose sides, and once they chose sides they no longer get to pick and choose on issues.
There are plenty of very community-focused religions which promote near-total isolation from outsiders. They don't care in the slightest what the rest of the world is up to - they can all go to hell, literally. The Amish, the strictest sects of orthodox Judaism, Largely ignorant people, because they deliberately shun education, but at least they keep to themselves and only terrorize the occasional member of their own community who tries to leave.
The Right believes in freedom of speech, so long as that speech doesn't involve dirty words, or contain any type of sexually explicit material, or offend their God or holy text, or undermine patriotic values.
The Left believes in freedom of speech, so long as that speech isn't in any way offensive to anyone, who worded in such way (even unintentionally) as to exclude a protected minority group, or promoting even non-violent hostility towards same.
They both say they value freedom of speech, but then are happy to make a lot of exceptions. They only differ on the choice of exceptions.
That depends who replaces them. The committee isn't getting smaller: Members are just getting replaced. I wouldn't be surprised to see if the replacements are all ex-lobbyists who start explaining that carbon dioxide is plant food, so the world needs more of it to boost agriculture.
Slight problem though: Around half of US government spending is on their obscenely bloated military. Military spending is a sacred cow for the Republican party - they might talk about cutting spending a lot, but they would never even consider cutting the military budget. They are constantly pressing to spend even more there.
I'm sure law enforcement could get hold of some material seized in a previous case if they needed to submit it. We already know from this incident that they are quite happy to distribute it in order to gather evidence.
Their actions may well constitute a crime. It certainly pushes the limits.
A crime does not cease to be a crime just because the end result was a positive.
If you say that law enforcement should be permitted to break the law with impunity if that's what it takes to catch criminals, then welcome to the police state.
Kill a child: Zero investment, thus zero loss. Kill a ninety-year-old with dementia: Zero remaining production, thus zero loss.
There must be a point in between where worth is maximised. Probably around 25 or so, when the investment in rearing and education is fully sunk and has yet to be recuperated.
How exactly does distributing it harm children? Producing it, yes. But distributing? Also it's worth noting that many countries consider artistic depictions, photomanipulations and even written material featuring children in sexual situations to be equally illegal. How does that harm any children?
Protecting children is only half of the reason for the legal prohibition. The other half is that the public in general feels that anyone who likes such material is sub-human filth and needs to be excluded from society and punished for daring to be such a disgusting monster.
I've never seen any child abuse imagery myself, and have no desire to, but I still know a moral panic when I see one and know how dangerous that collective desire to make bad people suffer can be.
The ends of law enforcement is usually to make law enforcement look good. Child abuses are possible the most loathed of all criminals - the public utterly hates them to an extend that can be hard to imagine. If a politician were to propose that they be executed by slowly lowering them feet first into a woodchipper, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority voted in favor. So arresting a load of people for possession of child pornography is a great publicity win, even if none of the arrested ever actually abused or would abuse a child.
Ancient societies were not very good at recording an exact cause of death for anything but the most common of illnesses. The text I was referring to is the 'Edwin Smith Papyrus.' That's the first to describe something which is clearly identifiable as cancer. That doesn't mean cancer appeared then, just that there are very few medical texts from that era still surviving today.
Here in the UK we get similar bothers when we try to work on some relic from the dark ages and find our standard metric tools don't fit. That's why I have an adjustable wrench. Given that just about every country in the world now has gone metric with the exception of the US, I think it's about time you rejoined modern civilisation.
DVD's are 'encrypted.' CSS is basically a lesson in how not do do crypto. It's so throughly cracked, you can buy novelty tshirts with the (very short) decryption algorithm on.
We I in charge, I'd use a very simple and undetectable watermark: Pick 64 points in the film, by frame number. Either duplicate the next or the previous frame on top of it. That's a 64-bit unique identifier embedded, which - as we are talking about a streaming service - can be per-customer. Then just go on the Bay a week later, download, decode, identify customer, and kick them off. Optionally set the lawyers on them.
"From what I can tell that spec treats playback devices as black boxes expecting device manufacturers to implement such details with mere contractual obligations compelling them so."
Not quite. There is a revocation mechanism in HDCP: If a manufacturer doesn't properly abide by the contractual requirements regarding anti-tamper measures or the prohibition on unencrypted digital output, the consortium behind HDCP can revoke their key - which means all those already-sold TVs suddenly become useless. It's the nuclear option: A penalty so severe, it will hopefully never have to be used. It doesn't matter though because, as you point out, HDCP has been throughly broken now.
Slashdot Mirror
Just hire the devs from Nethack and Space Station 13. Lock them in a room and ply them with coffee and box sets. Soon have a complete simulation done.
Price will come down. It might cost a thousand dollars today, but in a few years there will be new devices out for half the price, and today's ones will be going on eBay as people upgrade to the new models that do pretty much the same but weigh less.
They'll just blame Obama for all that.
Given Trump's picks so far? I expect the new head to be either a businessman worth a few hundred million dollars at least, or a former head of an anti-immigration pressure group.
He doesn't have to sorry about impeachment. It would be a humiliation to the Republican party beyond imagining if that happened - they simply cannot allow it, and they have a majority.
"and except for a limited few no one on the right wants to make laws regarding blasphemy. "
Laws, no, but the AFA and their like have been behind a few campaigns to have television series canceled by mass-complaining to the FCC or petitioning advertisers. I only learned of Lucifer because I read an article about them (can't remember just which agency, there are a few) condemning it for blasphemy and calling upon their supporters to file complaints.
"Free market libertarian types don't give a f**k about those examples"
They are also vanishingly rare in politics. Plenty of posers, though.
Right, left... currently they are for most purposes indistinguishable from republican and democrat. It's a consequence of a political system in which there are only two parties with a snowball's hope in hell of winning any election: People have to choose sides, and once they chose sides they no longer get to pick and choose on issues.
There are plenty of very community-focused religions which promote near-total isolation from outsiders. They don't care in the slightest what the rest of the world is up to - they can all go to hell, literally. The Amish, the strictest sects of orthodox Judaism, Largely ignorant people, because they deliberately shun education, but at least they keep to themselves and only terrorize the occasional member of their own community who tries to leave.
But they are not together.
The Right believes in freedom of speech, so long as that speech doesn't involve dirty words, or contain any type of sexually explicit material, or offend their God or holy text, or undermine patriotic values.
The Left believes in freedom of speech, so long as that speech isn't in any way offensive to anyone, who worded in such way (even unintentionally) as to exclude a protected minority group, or promoting even non-violent hostility towards same.
They both say they value freedom of speech, but then are happy to make a lot of exceptions. They only differ on the choice of exceptions.
That depends who replaces them. The committee isn't getting smaller: Members are just getting replaced. I wouldn't be surprised to see if the replacements are all ex-lobbyists who start explaining that carbon dioxide is plant food, so the world needs more of it to boost agriculture.
Slight problem though: Around half of US government spending is on their obscenely bloated military. Military spending is a sacred cow for the Republican party - they might talk about cutting spending a lot, but they would never even consider cutting the military budget. They are constantly pressing to spend even more there.
Hollywood assures us that if everyone just downloads for free, nothing more will be produced.
"Often, this is done to weed out law enforcement"
Well, now we know that doesn't work.
I'm sure law enforcement could get hold of some material seized in a previous case if they needed to submit it. We already know from this incident that they are quite happy to distribute it in order to gather evidence.
Their actions may well constitute a crime. It certainly pushes the limits.
A crime does not cease to be a crime just because the end result was a positive.
If you say that law enforcement should be permitted to break the law with impunity if that's what it takes to catch criminals, then welcome to the police state.
Kill a child: Zero investment, thus zero loss.
Kill a ninety-year-old with dementia: Zero remaining production, thus zero loss.
There must be a point in between where worth is maximised. Probably around 25 or so, when the investment in rearing and education is fully sunk and has yet to be recuperated.
How exactly does distributing it harm children? Producing it, yes. But distributing? Also it's worth noting that many countries consider artistic depictions, photomanipulations and even written material featuring children in sexual situations to be equally illegal. How does that harm any children?
Protecting children is only half of the reason for the legal prohibition. The other half is that the public in general feels that anyone who likes such material is sub-human filth and needs to be excluded from society and punished for daring to be such a disgusting monster.
I've never seen any child abuse imagery myself, and have no desire to, but I still know a moral panic when I see one and know how dangerous that collective desire to make bad people suffer can be.
Anti-monitoring operations by the site operators perhaps? Embed links to images on legitimate websites, with height and width set to zero.
The ends of law enforcement is usually to make law enforcement look good. Child abuses are possible the most loathed of all criminals - the public utterly hates them to an extend that can be hard to imagine. If a politician were to propose that they be executed by slowly lowering them feet first into a woodchipper, I wouldn't be surprised if a majority voted in favor. So arresting a load of people for possession of child pornography is a great publicity win, even if none of the arrested ever actually abused or would abuse a child.
It's a strict liability offense.
Too dangerous - if the frame job is uncovered somehow, the perpetrator will suffer just as much as their victim would have.
Hillary got more votes. Trump only won because of the college.
Ancient societies were not very good at recording an exact cause of death for anything but the most common of illnesses. The text I was referring to is the 'Edwin Smith Papyrus.' That's the first to describe something which is clearly identifiable as cancer. That doesn't mean cancer appeared then, just that there are very few medical texts from that era still surviving today.
Metric parts are standard parts.
Here in the UK we get similar bothers when we try to work on some relic from the dark ages and find our standard metric tools don't fit. That's why I have an adjustable wrench. Given that just about every country in the world now has gone metric with the exception of the US, I think it's about time you rejoined modern civilisation.
DVD's are 'encrypted.' CSS is basically a lesson in how not do do crypto. It's so throughly cracked, you can buy novelty tshirts with the (very short) decryption algorithm on.
I wouldn't use QR.
We I in charge, I'd use a very simple and undetectable watermark: Pick 64 points in the film, by frame number. Either duplicate the next or the previous frame on top of it. That's a 64-bit unique identifier embedded, which - as we are talking about a streaming service - can be per-customer. Then just go on the Bay a week later, download, decode, identify customer, and kick them off. Optionally set the lawyers on them.
"From what I can tell that spec treats playback devices as black boxes expecting device manufacturers to implement such details with mere contractual obligations compelling them so."
Not quite. There is a revocation mechanism in HDCP: If a manufacturer doesn't properly abide by the contractual requirements regarding anti-tamper measures or the prohibition on unencrypted digital output, the consortium behind HDCP can revoke their key - which means all those already-sold TVs suddenly become useless. It's the nuclear option: A penalty so severe, it will hopefully never have to be used. It doesn't matter though because, as you point out, HDCP has been throughly broken now.