One thing is certain, those arguing for the flag claim it will have no effect but they have no technological explanation as to how that will be achieved
The studios don't want just a flag. They want a major change to how the entire system works, and they want massive amounts of additional control. They want the ability to tell recording devices to automagically delete recordings after a certain number of viewings, a certain amount of time, or on remote command. Fun, no? This is exactly what the manufacturers have refused to do.
It's unlikely to happen -- it requires major changes to the standards. The other part is that if you don't have a compliant device then all you'll get is a low-res analog output. This would effectively cripple all the current HDTV sets, and there's a hell of a lot of those out there.
The current flags don't affect tuners. It really is a non-issue. Changes to the flags in any way may or may not affect tuners, depending on what other changes are required too -- but unless the entire broadcast was changed tuners would still be able to tune in the channel and would pass the digital bits off to the next component. Put in all the flags you want -- if it's in a bitspace that the tuner doesn't "listen to" then it makes no difference whatsoever.
Basically in order to affect current tuners they would have to change the packet structure. This would require broadcasters to buy new equipment as well. If you're a studio exec, I wouldn't hold your breath here.
The industry doesn't give a crap about low resolution analog. They're freaking over high resolution digital copies.
What the studios want is for all output to be over DVI, which is nearly unusable for re-encoding due to bandwidth (go read one of my other posts for details), at least for a few years. If your device doesn't accept DVI, well, here's a lovely NTSC level output you can use to connect to anything you want. Including that old HDTV display that doesn't have a DVI input. Too bad, so sad.
Fortunately the equipment manufacturers have collectively told them to fuck off. And it requires major changes to the standard to do what they want, so unless the FCC mandates it (increasingly unlikely) it won't happen. Then the studios will be between a rock and a hard place -- they can decry what they see as a lack of copy protection, but they still have to sell it to the networks for broadcast -- it's a major revenue source.
But you can bet that for piracy prevention reasons, movies broadcast on American digital terrestrial TV will be downsampled to 480p, which is no better than DVD
Excepting that HBO, Showtime, and the networks are already broadcasting full length movies at 1080i currently.
Shrug. It's one of the inherent downsides of DTV - it wants a bigger TV. Not because of 16:9, but because people sit considerably further away from a TV than they do from something like a computer monitor. Because of this you have to have a bigger set to make the additional resolution worthwhile.
27" is considered small by the industry though. The most popular TV size has been steadily rising over the past decade and currently hovers around 36". In part it's because people have larger and larger living rooms, which allow for (and, largely, require) bigger sets. You can sit 15' away from a 36" TV comfortably. Sit 15' away from a 19" TV and it's like viewing a postage stamp (been there, done that).
If they don't get things worked out soon then the digital rights management whinges will die. That simple. Because no, they won't change the standard and piss off all the early adopters -- there's too many of them to piss off.
Don't forget that this also requires changes on the broadcast side. Sure, pissing off a few hundred thousand consumers with HDTV receivers may not cause issues. Pissing off a few hundred broadcasters, all of them in the largest markets, will.
As far as getting around it by calling them "monitors" -- maybe, but then you can't have any kind of receiver in there. Questionable if you can even have a speaker. If you put in an analog tuner you must put in a digital tuner -- that's what this FCC decision is all about. You also can't call it a TV, market it as one, or allow retailers to market it as such.
Back on the copyright flag bit -- there's an ongoing battle between the studios and the manufacturers about what should be involved. The studios want very draconian standards, which will toast all current HD sets (they'll be limited to lower resolution analog input). The manufacturers don't want to piss off the consumers or broadcasters. The manufacturers have the upper hand here -- all they have to do is wait and the market will be too big to change.
Note that there are already "copy any/once/never" flags in the standard (I think -- the new Digital VCRs comply to them), but the studios know that they're ineffective (think about how effective DVD regions or DAT copy flags are).
Your examples are bogus. While I agree that they follow the letter of the law (DMCA), anyone who attempted to hijack a public domain work would be slammed down in the courts.
It's merely another example of why the DMCA is a bad law.
You won't find a rear projection set capable of 720p, much less 1080p. The horizontal scan delay is too low. 1080i only requires the TV to pain 540 lines per frame, which isn't vastly more than 480. In order to do 720 you have to do nearly twice as much work in the same amount of time. In order to do 1080 it's nearly 3 times.
You can get front projection CRT systems that will do 1080p - they cost about $30-40k. You can get FP CRT, LCD, or DLP systems that will do 720p for $10k or less. Within a year or so they'll be available in rear projection models too.
But 720p is essentially dead as a standard - nobody will broadcast it because too few TVs will display it without conversion. 1080p isn't an official standard for broadcast at all and won't be used.
Oh, and there used to be some 720p RP sets on the market, in the early days of HD. They've been taken off the market -- too expensive and no real purpose since nobody's going to use the broadcast standard (nobody == none of the 4 major networks).
Never seen a well setup HDTV have you? No, I'm not talking about the dreck they have at Best Buy or Circuit City. They can't setup a digital TV right. It's not that it's difficult, it's just that they can't use the same crappy store-wide video reproduction hardware they use for all the other TVs.
And I'll admit, that even as someone looking forward to HDTV, I'd been wondering what all the hullabaloo was about too. And then I finally saw a half-decent HDTV setup. I say half-decent only because it was on a small (27") TV with about 30 other geeks clustered around it. The picture wasn't of anything amazing -- just a shuttle launch at the cape. But OH MY GOD WAS IT CLEAR. You could see details that aren't even fuzzy blurs on standard TV. The color quality was amazing. It really was like looking through a window.
Look, you can scoff at this, but look at the difference between playing a game at 640x480 and 1600x1200. This is literally the level of quality difference HDTV is talking about.
And yes, movies are the killer app for HDTV. You realize that this is nearly 7x the resolution of the best DVD, right? And do you have any idea how many movies are broadcast on just local stations on a weekly basis? We'll just ignore pay channels like HBO and Showtime (who are already broadcasting HD).
"Regular" shows will benefit too. Sports the most. In HD you can show a shot of the entire football field (American or what the rest of the world calls Football - take your pick) and be able to see everything. It has that much detail. Hell, you can see individual expressions on faces in the bleachers from a long shot (whoodedoo, but that shows the resolution). And everything else that's recorded and broadcast in true HD will be similarly life-like.
Yes, yes, get off your asses and go see the world. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have better looking TV.
Yes, and there will be a lot of them out there. Note that the FCC mandate is for digital tuners to be sold in all TVs -- not that the TVs themselves be DTV or HDTV capable.
So you could still buy a TV capable of only NTSC resolution with a digital tuner that will downsample all data to what it can display.
There will also be an market for these things, but my bet is that they'll be expensive enough that it'll be more attractive to just buy a new TV -- one with better picture quality and probably one that is capable of displaying true HDTV.
If there's a broadcaster with digital transmission in the right range, you may be classified as "able to receive". What? You don't have a digital capable TV? Not their problem.
The reality is that people are still buying televisions, and at a good clip. TVs wear out sooner or later, and even a minor repair often costs more than a new set.
And before people whine and cry that this is just a big ploy to make everyone buy new TVs, remember that it was the manufacturer's association that was trying to block this. Yup. That's right. The people who you'd have to buy a new TV from were trying to prevent you from having to buy a new TV. I don't get it either.
Oh, and their estimate of $250 additional cost is a load of crap. Yes, it would cost that much (or more) today, because of supply and demand. This very same organization complained that IEEE-1394 should not be made the digital connection standard for TVs because it would raise the cost of TVs $100 per connector. Yes. IEEE-1394, aka Firewire. You know, that connector you have 2 of on your new $80 motherboard? In addition to about 20 other connectors?
They're good for emergencies. Why not get one purely for that purpose?
If this is truely the only reason you want a phone, and you classify "emergency" as something where you need to get local authorities involved (and not call your extended family to let them start worrying early), then all you need is a phone and an in-car charger. You don't need a plan. Any phone, regardless of whether or not it has a plan, can dial 911 at no charge. This is federally mandated.
Get in an accident? Medical emergency? Afraid for your life? Call 911. The call will go through.
We gave my mother my wife's old cell phone for exactly this reason. She's lives in the midwest and drives a lot, and her only reason to get a cell phone was in case of car problems, accidents, etc.
Does it let you call random other number in case of a problem? Nope. And that can be useful, especially for things where 911 really shouldn't be involved (like car breakdowns not involving hitting anything), but just a cell phone and charger will do fine for true emergencies, and those can be gotten for a one time charge of about $10-20 at a pawn shop.
It's up to roughly 1 Gbps of data streaming over an analog interface. Which would have to be re-encoded to MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 or something with a reasonable storage size. You could write it straight to disk, but you're talking about 450 GB for a 1 hour show.
Note that you'd have to have a nice RAID array to even write it - no single HD can keep up with that flow of data. Nor will a cheapo 2 drive IDE RAID.
The re-encode time is significant, and tricky. This is the kind of thing DVD mastering studios spend months on with 1/7 as much data.
That is incorrect. Simply by copying (distributing) the source code of a GPL application, you have EXPLICITLY AND WITH NO AMBIGUITY agreed to the terms of the GPL, which include (if you use the standard template) a disclaimer of warranty
First off, you're wrong. You cannot disclaim warrantee just by including a file. Disclaiming a warrantee is a modification of the contract (in this case, implicit contract) and it must be explicity agreed to by both parties. Shrinkwrap and click wrap licenses work here -- they force the user to at least see the text, even if they don't read it. A LICENSE file inside of a gzip doesn't cut it.
Besides which, merely copying the software cannot imply that you agree to its terms. Why? Because you have to download the software to view the enclosed license - which is in and of itself copying the file.
Simply the fact that the GPL-licensed software is in your possession means you've agreed there is no warranty on the software.
Yes, there's digital TV. And it's generally a lower bitrate and line count than standard definition TV (whether it be PAL, NTSC, or whatever). Which has little to do with DTV and absolutely nothing to do with HDTV.
DTV's lowest resolution, as I recall, is 640x480 interlaced. Which is, at the worst, equivalent to a top notch analog broadcast in lines of information. If you skimp on the bandwidth you'll wind up with MPEG-2 encoding artifacts, but that's life. It'll still have better color quality than NTSC or PAL though.
HDTV's highest resolution is 1920x1080 interlaced, giving it 6.75x as much pixel information as the low guy on the totem pole. You'd have to screw things up pretty seriously during encoding to not get a better picture than standard definition. Hell, this is higher resolution than digital theaters! (Which is sad, really).
Your wife would love to master HD material. It makes DVD look as bad as poorly broadcast digital TV.
Most DVD's average 2-3 Mbps for the video. Which means something in the vicinity of 50:1 compression (gee, looky, they're nearly the same!). And yet it's a helluva lot better than any picture you'll get off broadcast or standard definition digital.
Yes boys and girls, MPEG-2 can indeed create this level of compression with little visual degredation. Is it the same as the source? Of course not. But it really is quite close.
If this fails, someone will design a $10-$20 signil filter that will remove the DO NOT RECORD, signil from your cable service.
Which is illegal under the DMCA. And since the bitrates involved here are not trivial it'll probably be a bit more complex than a radio shack kit. Which means there's a manufacturing plant that the MPAA/RIAA/whoever can shut down. Hard.
Of course, the cable industry is seriously pushing for cable boxes that don't output firewire in the first place. The only output they want from the box is full resolution analog video over DVI, which is too much data to store bit-for-bit and currently too much data to (affordably) re-encode in realtime. And even if you did re-encode you'd not only lose quality, you'd once again be in violation of the DMCA.
Ones that know that they are rapidly becoming outmoded and a hinderance to their subject matter rather than a necessary part.
The MPAA and RIAA are middlemen, pure and simple. Consider just how many middlemen computers have eliminated and you might understand why they're fighting like cornered dogs.
I vehementantly disagree with what they're trying to do, particuarly since in many cases they don't even do what the purport to do (such as pay the artists a reasonable wage in the case of the RIAA), but I can at least understand it.
Very few directors film this way. James Cameron is the notable exception -- he films everything in Super 35 and is on record preferring 1.33 to other aspect ratios.
Most movies are shot on , cropped to whatever aspect ratio the director likes, and that's the movie. When they display it on a 4:3 screen they crop it AGAIN - they do not go back to the original film stock and try and add information back in. Why? Because usually the director and cameraman didn't give a crap about anything outside of that frame, so there's often booms, random people, and other detrious in the additional picture area. Not to mention issues with SFX.
If you've got expensive tastes, then presumably you have the income to match
Yes, because, clearly, if you can tell the difference between a McDonald's hamburger and filet mignon, you must be able to buy filet mignon for every meal.
What an idiotic argument.
No, my TiVos can't record digital TV at full resolution. I knew that when I bought them. Anyone who whines about that aspect is a hyprocrite. But I damn well want to be able to time shift future television - ANY future television, not just what someone says I can timeshift, and not just for how long they say (I have some TV shows over 6 months old recorded on one of my TiVos (yes, I have two. They rock and it's a very nice thing when you and your wife have show conflicts)), or so that I can only watch it once. These are all restrictions that the MPAA and cable broadcasters have whined for in the past 3 years.
I wish I did have unlimited funds -- I would've bought one of the first JVC Digital VCRs that ran about $2k. There are D-VHS decks available for less now, but they're crippled - they won't record anything that the broadcaster asks not to be recorded and they won't make copies (no big deal to me, I'm not doing this to rip someone off, but it's a silly restriction that annoys me).
Hell, I don't even have HDTV yet. Because I'm waiting: 1) For the Rear Projection DLP sets to come down in price, 2) for the industry to decide just how they're going to screw the consumer.
Fortunately the equipment manufacturers are on the consumer's side here. They don't want to put in any restrictions because they know consumers don't want the crap (which will reduce sales) and because some of the things the MPAA, et. al. have been asking for would seriously cripple all current sets -- and they don't want to piss early adopters off.
What you fail to see is that this is an issue that will affect you. If the MPAA, et. al. get what they want then you'll be beholden to them on what you watch, when you watch, and how much you pay to watch. Don't forget, these are the same people trying to embed DRM in every piece of electronics sold in the US (and thus, worldwide). Don't blindly think that it doesn't matter because you can just get a computer to do the work for you -- if they get their way, you won't be able to. Period.
So nice of you to offer residence to every American that does open source development. Have you already spoken to your country's immigration department regarding the number of dual citizenships that will need to be offered, as well as indemnity from extradition?
Currently, yes. Although if you sell it as a commercial good then there's usually the implied warrantee of it being usable for its marketed purpose.
Most EULA's disclaim any and all warrantees, which may or may not be legal depending on the state laws and legal system.
The change the UCITA brings is that there is a stronger implied warrantee - not only that software is good for its marketed purpose, but that it is non-damaging and reasonably bug free (note - IANAL, so I may be reading more into the UCITA than there is actually there). You can disclaim these warrantees (see above), but that requires an explicit agreement between the consumer and the vendor, in the form of an EULA or click wrap installer.
The Open Source world doesn't have either right now, at least by and large. And a lot of people in the OSS movement disagree with the concepts of an EULA and/or click-wrap licensing on an ethical standpoint. UCITA would require them to either change their standpoint or potentially get sued for thousands or millions of dollars.
As a developer I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. On one hand, I do believe that software should be held to the same standards as most other goods. If you tell me that TurboTax 2002 is a tax software program, then I expect it to do a reasonable job at filing my taxes and to not wipe my hard drive (disclaimer - I've never had a problem with TurboTax. Put the lawyers down). On the other hand, software is freaking complex, and the US is over litigious. Who knows what a judge and jury may decide is covered by the implied warrantee and what isn't, and certainly liability has the potential for killing OSS development dead within the US. Not a good thing.
There ought to be a law...
on
Meet the Spammers
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
On one matter, however, spammers and their nemeses agree: the United States needs a federal spam law
The article claims this... and yet we see big spam houses fighting anti-spam laws left and right everytime they're proposed in the legislature for a state. And I seriously doubt they comply with the current anti-spam laws in the few states that have them -- since all they have is an email address and no state of residence information.
Frankly, I'm for a reasonable anti-spam law (one similar to the junk fax law, which has worked well). Obviously it's not as clear cut as junk faxes -- with them you can find out who sent you the junk. Spammers routinely obfusacate their information as mentioned in the article. I'm tired of the amount of spam I get, and unless you run your own mail server (something not viable for the vast majority of the Internet populace, and not even viable for the majority of the geeks) there's no way to block it.
Not that blocking really helps -- the bandwidth has already been consumed. The only thing blocking does is automagically delete it for you. I'd like the bandwidth back personally.
My operating costs have gone up 1,000 percent this year, just so I can figure out how to get around all these filters
And 10 * 0 is how much again?
Ok, their costs aren't truely zero, but close enough as to make no real difference. Of course, the same can probably be said for the respondant percentage.
Pearl [sic] is nowhere even vaguely close to machine language. Nor is it a "1.5 GL" -- it's a 3GL or 4GL, depending on how you feel. It's on exactly the same level as Java, and, frankly, unless your Java compiler is amazingly slow or your Java code sucks rocks, I doubt that you'd see a major speed difference between the two -- perl is a compiled-interpreted language, meaning that perl compiles it at runtime. Java essentially does the same, with an intermediate bytecode step.
Slashdot Mirror
One thing is certain, those arguing for the flag claim it will have no effect but they have no technological explanation as to how that will be achieved
The studios don't want just a flag. They want a major change to how the entire system works, and they want massive amounts of additional control. They want the ability to tell recording devices to automagically delete recordings after a certain number of viewings, a certain amount of time, or on remote command. Fun, no? This is exactly what the manufacturers have refused to do.
It's unlikely to happen -- it requires major changes to the standards. The other part is that if you don't have a compliant device then all you'll get is a low-res analog output. This would effectively cripple all the current HDTV sets, and there's a hell of a lot of those out there.
The current flags don't affect tuners. It really is a non-issue. Changes to the flags in any way may or may not affect tuners, depending on what other changes are required too -- but unless the entire broadcast was changed tuners would still be able to tune in the channel and would pass the digital bits off to the next component. Put in all the flags you want -- if it's in a bitspace that the tuner doesn't "listen to" then it makes no difference whatsoever.
Basically in order to affect current tuners they would have to change the packet structure. This would require broadcasters to buy new equipment as well. If you're a studio exec, I wouldn't hold your breath here.
The industry doesn't give a crap about low resolution analog. They're freaking over high resolution digital copies.
What the studios want is for all output to be over DVI, which is nearly unusable for re-encoding due to bandwidth (go read one of my other posts for details), at least for a few years. If your device doesn't accept DVI, well, here's a lovely NTSC level output you can use to connect to anything you want. Including that old HDTV display that doesn't have a DVI input. Too bad, so sad.
Fortunately the equipment manufacturers have collectively told them to fuck off. And it requires major changes to the standard to do what they want, so unless the FCC mandates it (increasingly unlikely) it won't happen. Then the studios will be between a rock and a hard place -- they can decry what they see as a lack of copy protection, but they still have to sell it to the networks for broadcast -- it's a major revenue source.
But you can bet that for piracy prevention reasons, movies broadcast on American digital terrestrial TV will be downsampled to 480p, which is no better than DVD
Excepting that HBO, Showtime, and the networks are already broadcasting full length movies at 1080i currently.
Next.
Shrug. It's one of the inherent downsides of DTV - it wants a bigger TV. Not because of 16:9, but because people sit considerably further away from a TV than they do from something like a computer monitor. Because of this you have to have a bigger set to make the additional resolution worthwhile.
27" is considered small by the industry though. The most popular TV size has been steadily rising over the past decade and currently hovers around 36". In part it's because people have larger and larger living rooms, which allow for (and, largely, require) bigger sets. You can sit 15' away from a 36" TV comfortably. Sit 15' away from a 19" TV and it's like viewing a postage stamp (been there, done that).
If they don't get things worked out soon then the digital rights management whinges will die. That simple. Because no, they won't change the standard and piss off all the early adopters -- there's too many of them to piss off.
Don't forget that this also requires changes on the broadcast side. Sure, pissing off a few hundred thousand consumers with HDTV receivers may not cause issues. Pissing off a few hundred broadcasters, all of them in the largest markets, will.
As far as getting around it by calling them "monitors" -- maybe, but then you can't have any kind of receiver in there. Questionable if you can even have a speaker. If you put in an analog tuner you must put in a digital tuner -- that's what this FCC decision is all about. You also can't call it a TV, market it as one, or allow retailers to market it as such.
Back on the copyright flag bit -- there's an ongoing battle between the studios and the manufacturers about what should be involved. The studios want very draconian standards, which will toast all current HD sets (they'll be limited to lower resolution analog input). The manufacturers don't want to piss off the consumers or broadcasters. The manufacturers have the upper hand here -- all they have to do is wait and the market will be too big to change.
Note that there are already "copy any/once/never" flags in the standard (I think -- the new Digital VCRs comply to them), but the studios know that they're ineffective (think about how effective DVD regions or DAT copy flags are).
Your examples are bogus. While I agree that they follow the letter of the law (DMCA), anyone who attempted to hijack a public domain work would be slammed down in the courts.
It's merely another example of why the DMCA is a bad law.
You won't find a rear projection set capable of 720p, much less 1080p. The horizontal scan delay is too low. 1080i only requires the TV to pain 540 lines per frame, which isn't vastly more than 480. In order to do 720 you have to do nearly twice as much work in the same amount of time. In order to do 1080 it's nearly 3 times.
You can get front projection CRT systems that will do 1080p - they cost about $30-40k. You can get FP CRT, LCD, or DLP systems that will do 720p for $10k or less. Within a year or so they'll be available in rear projection models too.
But 720p is essentially dead as a standard - nobody will broadcast it because too few TVs will display it without conversion. 1080p isn't an official standard for broadcast at all and won't be used.
Oh, and there used to be some 720p RP sets on the market, in the early days of HD. They've been taken off the market -- too expensive and no real purpose since nobody's going to use the broadcast standard (nobody == none of the 4 major networks).
Never seen a well setup HDTV have you? No, I'm not talking about the dreck they have at Best Buy or Circuit City. They can't setup a digital TV right. It's not that it's difficult, it's just that they can't use the same crappy store-wide video reproduction hardware they use for all the other TVs.
And I'll admit, that even as someone looking forward to HDTV, I'd been wondering what all the hullabaloo was about too. And then I finally saw a half-decent HDTV setup. I say half-decent only because it was on a small (27") TV with about 30 other geeks clustered around it. The picture wasn't of anything amazing -- just a shuttle launch at the cape. But OH MY GOD WAS IT CLEAR. You could see details that aren't even fuzzy blurs on standard TV. The color quality was amazing. It really was like looking through a window.
Look, you can scoff at this, but look at the difference between playing a game at 640x480 and 1600x1200. This is literally the level of quality difference HDTV is talking about.
And yes, movies are the killer app for HDTV. You realize that this is nearly 7x the resolution of the best DVD, right? And do you have any idea how many movies are broadcast on just local stations on a weekly basis? We'll just ignore pay channels like HBO and Showtime (who are already broadcasting HD).
"Regular" shows will benefit too. Sports the most. In HD you can show a shot of the entire football field (American or what the rest of the world calls Football - take your pick) and be able to see everything. It has that much detail. Hell, you can see individual expressions on faces in the bleachers from a long shot (whoodedoo, but that shows the resolution). And everything else that's recorded and broadcast in true HD will be similarly life-like.
Yes, yes, get off your asses and go see the world. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't have better looking TV.
Yes, and there will be a lot of them out there. Note that the FCC mandate is for digital tuners to be sold in all TVs -- not that the TVs themselves be DTV or HDTV capable.
So you could still buy a TV capable of only NTSC resolution with a digital tuner that will downsample all data to what it can display.
There will also be an market for these things, but my bet is that they'll be expensive enough that it'll be more attractive to just buy a new TV -- one with better picture quality and probably one that is capable of displaying true HDTV.
Then come 2012 or so you won't be watching television either. Because by then the analog spectrum will finally be reclaimed, as it's supposed to be.
It'll just be 6 years later than expected.
80% of the US is able to recive digital TV
Depends on your definition of "able to receive".
If there's a broadcaster with digital transmission in the right range, you may be classified as "able to receive". What? You don't have a digital capable TV? Not their problem.
The reality is that people are still buying televisions, and at a good clip. TVs wear out sooner or later, and even a minor repair often costs more than a new set.
And before people whine and cry that this is just a big ploy to make everyone buy new TVs, remember that it was the manufacturer's association that was trying to block this. Yup. That's right. The people who you'd have to buy a new TV from were trying to prevent you from having to buy a new TV. I don't get it either.
Oh, and their estimate of $250 additional cost is a load of crap. Yes, it would cost that much (or more) today, because of supply and demand. This very same organization complained that IEEE-1394 should not be made the digital connection standard for TVs because it would raise the cost of TVs $100 per connector. Yes. IEEE-1394, aka Firewire. You know, that connector you have 2 of on your new $80 motherboard? In addition to about 20 other connectors?
They're good for emergencies. Why not get one purely for that purpose?
If this is truely the only reason you want a phone, and you classify "emergency" as something where you need to get local authorities involved (and not call your extended family to let them start worrying early), then all you need is a phone and an in-car charger. You don't need a plan. Any phone, regardless of whether or not it has a plan, can dial 911 at no charge. This is federally mandated.
Get in an accident? Medical emergency? Afraid for your life? Call 911. The call will go through.
We gave my mother my wife's old cell phone for exactly this reason. She's lives in the midwest and drives a lot, and her only reason to get a cell phone was in case of car problems, accidents, etc.
Does it let you call random other number in case of a problem? Nope. And that can be useful, especially for things where 911 really shouldn't be involved (like car breakdowns not involving hitting anything), but just a cell phone and charger will do fine for true emergencies, and those can be gotten for a one time charge of about $10-20 at a pawn shop.
It's up to roughly 1 Gbps of data streaming over an analog interface. Which would have to be re-encoded to MPEG-2 or MPEG-4 or something with a reasonable storage size. You could write it straight to disk, but you're talking about 450 GB for a 1 hour show.
Note that you'd have to have a nice RAID array to even write it - no single HD can keep up with that flow of data. Nor will a cheapo 2 drive IDE RAID.
The re-encode time is significant, and tricky. This is the kind of thing DVD mastering studios spend months on with 1/7 as much data.
That is incorrect. Simply by copying (distributing) the source code of a GPL application, you have EXPLICITLY AND WITH NO AMBIGUITY agreed to the terms of the GPL, which include (if you use the standard template) a disclaimer of warranty
First off, you're wrong. You cannot disclaim warrantee just by including a file. Disclaiming a warrantee is a modification of the contract (in this case, implicit contract) and it must be explicity agreed to by both parties. Shrinkwrap and click wrap licenses work here -- they force the user to at least see the text, even if they don't read it. A LICENSE file inside of a gzip doesn't cut it.
Besides which, merely copying the software cannot imply that you agree to its terms. Why? Because you have to download the software to view the enclosed license - which is in and of itself copying the file.
Simply the fact that the GPL-licensed software is in your possession means you've agreed there is no warranty on the software.
Sorry, no. That's not how contract law works.
Apples to oranges.
Yes, there's digital TV. And it's generally a lower bitrate and line count than standard definition TV (whether it be PAL, NTSC, or whatever). Which has little to do with DTV and absolutely nothing to do with HDTV.
DTV's lowest resolution, as I recall, is 640x480 interlaced. Which is, at the worst, equivalent to a top notch analog broadcast in lines of information. If you skimp on the bandwidth you'll wind up with MPEG-2 encoding artifacts, but that's life. It'll still have better color quality than NTSC or PAL though.
HDTV's highest resolution is 1920x1080 interlaced, giving it 6.75x as much pixel information as the low guy on the totem pole. You'd have to screw things up pretty seriously during encoding to not get a better picture than standard definition. Hell, this is higher resolution than digital theaters! (Which is sad, really).
Your wife would love to master HD material. It makes DVD look as bad as poorly broadcast digital TV.
DVD math:
480 lines * (1.33 * 480) * 30 Hz * 16 bits = 147.1 Mb/s.
Most DVD's average 2-3 Mbps for the video. Which means something in the vicinity of 50:1 compression (gee, looky, they're nearly the same!). And yet it's a helluva lot better than any picture you'll get off broadcast or standard definition digital.
Yes boys and girls, MPEG-2 can indeed create this level of compression with little visual degredation. Is it the same as the source? Of course not. But it really is quite close.
If this fails, someone will design a $10-$20 signil filter that will remove the DO NOT RECORD, signil from your cable service.
Which is illegal under the DMCA. And since the bitrates involved here are not trivial it'll probably be a bit more complex than a radio shack kit. Which means there's a manufacturing plant that the MPAA/RIAA/whoever can shut down. Hard.
Of course, the cable industry is seriously pushing for cable boxes that don't output firewire in the first place. The only output they want from the box is full resolution analog video over DVI, which is too much data to store bit-for-bit and currently too much data to (affordably) re-encode in realtime. And even if you did re-encode you'd not only lose quality, you'd once again be in violation of the DMCA.
Yay.
What industry thinks that way?
Ones that know that they are rapidly becoming outmoded and a hinderance to their subject matter rather than a necessary part.
The MPAA and RIAA are middlemen, pure and simple. Consider just how many middlemen computers have eliminated and you might understand why they're fighting like cornered dogs.
I vehementantly disagree with what they're trying to do, particuarly since in many cases they don't even do what the purport to do (such as pay the artists a reasonable wage in the case of the RIAA), but I can at least understand it.
And be afraid of it.
Very few directors film this way. James Cameron is the notable exception -- he films everything in Super 35 and is on record preferring 1.33 to other aspect ratios.
Most movies are shot on , cropped to whatever aspect ratio the director likes, and that's the movie. When they display it on a 4:3 screen they crop it AGAIN - they do not go back to the original film stock and try and add information back in. Why? Because usually the director and cameraman didn't give a crap about anything outside of that frame, so there's often booms, random people, and other detrious in the additional picture area. Not to mention issues with SFX.
If you've got expensive tastes, then presumably you have the income to match
Yes, because, clearly, if you can tell the difference between a McDonald's hamburger and filet mignon, you must be able to buy filet mignon for every meal.
What an idiotic argument.
No, my TiVos can't record digital TV at full resolution. I knew that when I bought them. Anyone who whines about that aspect is a hyprocrite. But I damn well want to be able to time shift future television - ANY future television, not just what someone says I can timeshift, and not just for how long they say (I have some TV shows over 6 months old recorded on one of my TiVos (yes, I have two. They rock and it's a very nice thing when you and your wife have show conflicts)), or so that I can only watch it once. These are all restrictions that the MPAA and cable broadcasters have whined for in the past 3 years.
I wish I did have unlimited funds -- I would've bought one of the first JVC Digital VCRs that ran about $2k. There are D-VHS decks available for less now, but they're crippled - they won't record anything that the broadcaster asks not to be recorded and they won't make copies (no big deal to me, I'm not doing this to rip someone off, but it's a silly restriction that annoys me).
Hell, I don't even have HDTV yet. Because I'm waiting: 1) For the Rear Projection DLP sets to come down in price, 2) for the industry to decide just how they're going to screw the consumer.
Fortunately the equipment manufacturers are on the consumer's side here. They don't want to put in any restrictions because they know consumers don't want the crap (which will reduce sales) and because some of the things the MPAA, et. al. have been asking for would seriously cripple all current sets -- and they don't want to piss early adopters off.
What you fail to see is that this is an issue that will affect you. If the MPAA, et. al. get what they want then you'll be beholden to them on what you watch, when you watch, and how much you pay to watch. Don't forget, these are the same people trying to embed DRM in every piece of electronics sold in the US (and thus, worldwide). Don't blindly think that it doesn't matter because you can just get a computer to do the work for you -- if they get their way, you won't be able to. Period.
So nice of you to offer residence to every American that does open source development. Have you already spoken to your country's immigration department regarding the number of dual citizenships that will need to be offered, as well as indemnity from extradition?
No?
Next please.
AFAIK, most software is without warranty
Currently, yes. Although if you sell it as a commercial good then there's usually the implied warrantee of it being usable for its marketed purpose.
Most EULA's disclaim any and all warrantees, which may or may not be legal depending on the state laws and legal system.
The change the UCITA brings is that there is a stronger implied warrantee - not only that software is good for its marketed purpose, but that it is non-damaging and reasonably bug free (note - IANAL, so I may be reading more into the UCITA than there is actually there). You can disclaim these warrantees (see above), but that requires an explicit agreement between the consumer and the vendor, in the form of an EULA or click wrap installer.
The Open Source world doesn't have either right now, at least by and large. And a lot of people in the OSS movement disagree with the concepts of an EULA and/or click-wrap licensing on an ethical standpoint. UCITA would require them to either change their standpoint or potentially get sued for thousands or millions of dollars.
As a developer I'm not sure where I stand on the issue. On one hand, I do believe that software should be held to the same standards as most other goods. If you tell me that TurboTax 2002 is a tax software program, then I expect it to do a reasonable job at filing my taxes and to not wipe my hard drive (disclaimer - I've never had a problem with TurboTax. Put the lawyers down). On the other hand, software is freaking complex, and the US is over litigious. Who knows what a judge and jury may decide is covered by the implied warrantee and what isn't, and certainly liability has the potential for killing OSS development dead within the US. Not a good thing.
On one matter, however, spammers and their nemeses agree: the United States needs a federal spam law
The article claims this... and yet we see big spam houses fighting anti-spam laws left and right everytime they're proposed in the legislature for a state. And I seriously doubt they comply with the current anti-spam laws in the few states that have them -- since all they have is an email address and no state of residence information.
Frankly, I'm for a reasonable anti-spam law (one similar to the junk fax law, which has worked well). Obviously it's not as clear cut as junk faxes -- with them you can find out who sent you the junk. Spammers routinely obfusacate their information as mentioned in the article. I'm tired of the amount of spam I get, and unless you run your own mail server (something not viable for the vast majority of the Internet populace, and not even viable for the majority of the geeks) there's no way to block it.
Not that blocking really helps -- the bandwidth has already been consumed. The only thing blocking does is automagically delete it for you. I'd like the bandwidth back personally.
My operating costs have gone up 1,000 percent this year, just so I can figure out how to get around all these filters
And 10 * 0 is how much again?
Ok, their costs aren't truely zero, but close enough as to make no real difference. Of course, the same can probably be said for the respondant percentage.
Uh, perhaps because the AC was full of crap?
Pearl [sic] is nowhere even vaguely close to machine language. Nor is it a "1.5 GL" -- it's a 3GL or 4GL, depending on how you feel. It's on exactly the same level as Java, and, frankly, unless your Java compiler is amazingly slow or your Java code sucks rocks, I doubt that you'd see a major speed difference between the two -- perl is a compiled-interpreted language, meaning that perl compiles it at runtime. Java essentially does the same, with an intermediate bytecode step.