There's not a country in the world that doesn't practice some kinds of censorship, if only related to state secrets, promoting crime, terror, even lying or promoting information known to be false, etc. Slippery slopes are, well, slippery, but that doesn't mean you never clean the slopes.
Nazism (and fascism in general) is a particularly extreme ideology that's inherently violent, both on a microlevel originating (and still existing) as gang level politics whose leaders openly advocate violence against opponents, and macro level where it's caused wars. Advocating for it is doing more than simply advocating a different point of view, it has direct real life consequences for those victimized by fascist groups.
I think there's a strong case for Nazi advocacy to be heavily restricted, and in many cases banned outright, and I think the opposing case is particularly weak in this instance.
There never has been a time when everyone was all "Oooh oooh! Our solution will be so much better if we USE XML!!!11!eleventy". XML has always been exceptionally unpopular with actual developers, it's always been PHBs and the computing community's equivalent of Very Serious People that has forced that god-awful standard on everyone.
Developers have always been trying to come up with better alternatives ever since XML was foisted upon us. It's taken a while, JSON took off because every implementation of Javascript has a parser (and had one before JSON was invented), but it wasn't the first, just the first that was so popular amongst developers that the VSPs had to throw their hands in the air and admit defeat.
More or less yes. Having a text renderer introduces its own complications, including predictable font sizes and fonts that can render every character used by every language in the world. Back in 1996, when DVD was standardized, that was a tall order. Some would say it still is.
Using bitmaps is also more flexible, in theory you can use the subtitle feature to add optional graphics instead of just text.
And given you're talking about a low depth (compressible? I think it's compressed) bitmap that changes once every few seconds, it's not as if there's a lot of overhead in the technique. The main stream already includes at least one 384kbps audio stream, plus an MPEG-2 video stream weighing in at anything from 2-5Mbps. A single 704x480 two color bitmap weighs in at 42k, or about 330 kilobits. One of those every 5 seconds is almost a trace amount of bandwidth.
Not that it changes your question much, but I think a significant number of subtitle systems (I know DVD does this for one) are based on low depth bitmaps, not text. That said, that makes it harder to understand why they'd be so easy to code badly, given bitmaps have an easily calculated maximum size.
Every accident will be the "car's fault" and result in litigation
No, every accident will be the car's fault. That'll be it. Rarely any litigation needed. That's a cost saving over the current system all by itself.
Right now, liability is split between car maker and driver. A driver has to pay around $1,000 a year to cover their side of the liability. In self driving cars, the manufacturer would build that into the cost of buying the car (that would add $10,000 for an expected ten year lifetime, if no changes are made.) But, of course, it won't be $10,000, because:
1. The car will be involved in fewer accidents
2. There's no insurer trying to make a profit
3. Litigation will be the exception, not the rule
So, it'll probably be more like $2-3000. Per car. Which might not even be paid up front, I mean, self driving cars will probably have to have a subscription element associated with them anyway, for servicing etc, so it may end up being that instead of paying $1000 a year for insuring your car, plus the cost of new tires, etc, you'll pay $500 a year for keeping the maps updated, the bits that need oiling oiled (I assume there'll be less of that in an electric vehicle), periodic safety check, and the manufacturer can tack on the risk pool funding at the same time.
Self driving cars are a death spiral for GEICO, AllState, Progressive, and the TV channels that rely upon their advertising dollars. Not for the manufacturers themselves.
Yeah, the "charges were dropped because we're unable to continue the investigation for now" thing seems mostly third party spin, analogous to "MP3 is dead because they're not offering licenses for it any more."
Obama would have violated the Constitution (he was trying to w/Assange and has a number of times while in office regarding other topics) in a heartbeat to prosecute Assange
So why didn't he? You talk as if Assange was holed up in an embassy throughout the entire Obama years. He wasn't.
TBH, I don't think there was any strong desire to see Assange arrested and tried in the US by the Obama government. You can make all kinds of claims about the degree to which any US government, Obama, Bush, or Trump, was lawless, but actually imprisoning someone requires a trial, and it's far from clear there'd be any grounds and evidence to convict Assange. The most likely result of an unconstitutional extradiction followed by a trial on dubious charges is a humiliating acquittal.
The claim Assange made was even more ridiculous: he was in hiding because Sweden would extradite him with the aim of then extraditing him to the US rather than prosecuting him for an actual crime they believe he committed. Why would the US want him for a flimsy trial they were unlikely to win if Sweden could actually imprison him legitimately? And if they really are that stupid, why wouldn't the UK just extradite to the US directly, given the UK is far more friendly to the US than Sweden is?
Apparently not, see first and second FAQ answers. Sounds interesting, it'll be interesting to see how well it works and how cheap the hardware would be. The major issue will be legacy devices that only support Wifi.
Wifi also needs exclusive spectrum to work properly: try setting two APs to the same frequency and putting them side by side. Most people get a serious reduction in Wifi throughput, of the order of 50-90%, if their neighbor has an AP on the same frequency, and that's despite walls and others obstacles reducing the competing AP's signal to a level that you can't connect to it directly.
LTE and Wifi both use OFDM which is an air interface technology that tolerates a certain amount of noise. So it's unlikely LTE will be unusable in situations where Wifi is usable.
I don't see this as a problem. I'm more concerned that this isn't what the summary says it is: being able to independently implement LTE sounds good to me, but IIRC the major push is for LTE that requires a combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum, rather than exclusively unlicensed. If they're also working on the latter, then awesome, it'd be nice to see how well an alternative to Wifi works, and something whose security is based upon physical SIM cards rather than passwords could be a big improvement, in theory.
OS/2 Warp was an OS released by IBM to compete with Microsoft DOS in the late eighties
Not... really. OS/2 Warp was the name given to the third version of OS/2. OS/2 was originally Microsoft and IBM's jointly developed successor to MS DOS/PC DOS. The history went like this:
1. OS/2 1.0 was co-developed by Microsoft and IBM as the successor to DOS (not a competitor.) It was not very good, the first version didn't even have a GUI although later versions in the 1.x series had a limited GUI not unlike Windows 3.x
2. Both parties hated the arrangement, and Microsoft and IBM had different ideas as to what the next version of OS/2 should be like. The two initially agreed to work on two more versions, with IBM releasing a short term 32 bit version of the OS called OS/2 2.0, and Microsoft working on a longer term version that would end up being the version after OS/2 2.0.
3. IBM released OS/2 2.0, which was generally praised but not widely adopted; but at this point Microsoft and IBM were completed divided on the future. What Microsoft had developed was clearly so far removed from OS/2 that it wasn't going to be OS/2 2.0's successor. It became Windows NT, and in the mean time Microsoft started selling DOS with Windows 3.x as the true successor to plain old DOS.
4. At this point - the early 1990s - IBM and Microsoft were at war. IBM revamped OS/2 2.0 producing OS/2 3.0 Warp, which it heavily marketed as a better Windows than Windows. PC manufacturers, with a handful of exceptions, completely ignored it, bundling Windows 3.x with their PCs, partially because IBM was considered a major competitor, and, after the MicroChannel debacle, not a company to be trusted.
5. OS/2 4.0 came out about the same time as Windows 95. Microsoft blacklisted IBM and refused to provide them with Windows 95 even for testing on their PCs until literally the night before release. IBM, knowing it had no chance of selling PCs without Windows 95, promptly dropped all development and marketing of OS/2.
Was it any good? Opinions differ. I thought it had some nice features, but it was hampered by poor technology choices from the beginning. It was a better system than 16 bit Windows, but that's not much of a complement.
They might, but if they're OS/2 only, why would they need anything other than the version of OS/2 they already have? And if not, why bother when something like Ubuntu + VirtualBox + FreeDOS can presumably do the same thing? (And that's assuming you want to run an ancient BBS implementation to begin with...)
ArcaOS isn't open source. From the point of view of most Slashdotters it's just another proprietary operating system, and not even a particularly significant one. I suspect most of us would be more excited by an update to AmigaOS, but even that wouldn't make the cut these days here.
...in elections involving states in the EU. That's the equivalent of Rick Scott endorsing Chris Cristie, not Putin endorsing Trump.
And Putin did rather more than endorse Trump.
I wonder, seriously, if Iran had endorsed Clinton and hacked the Republicans and revealed all their dirty laundry (and made routine business look like dirty laundry) if you'd be so complacent.
That report is a summary of the consensus of the various intelligence agencies of the US. It doesn't back up its claims with evidence because (1) it's a summary, and (2) US intelligence agencies don't just share evidence in public, that puts lives in danger. It has not been "debunked", the only way to debunk it is to ask the CIA, FBI, etc, whether they disagree with it, and none have.
Could it be based on nothing? Possibly, but it's exceedingly unlikely. To believe it is based on nothing and entirely made up you'd have to assume that virtually every US intelligence agency has gone partisan and rogue. Even the FBI, which isn't exactly known for being sympathetic to liberal causes and the Democrats would, in your world, have to be entirely run by people who make shit up to damage the Republicans.
Of course there's a "deep state", but the notion it's (1) organized and (2) any actions committed by people who are a part of it are against the interests of everyone else is what's dubious.
It is entirely reasonable to suppose that a large number of people in government right now want to see Trump out of power, and are willing to use their power to do so. It's also entirely reasonable to suppose that this is because he's an existential threat to the United States, rather than because they're worried he might take away their power to approve more H1Bs.
And in fact when I decided to just do it, I said to myself, I said 'you know, this Russia thing with Trump and Russia is a made-up story, it's an excuse by the Democrats for having lost an election that they should have won.
I don't think it's a smoking gun. But it's still a bizarrely stupid thing to say when everyone is pretty convinced you fired someone for investigating you.
You're saying Liberals don't want a bright, articulate, politician who happens to disagree with them on a handful of issues, and would rather have someone completely incompetent whose politics are beyond most definitions of extreme?
Assuming Pence doesn't take the fall with Trump, I see no reason to fear him more. We're less likely to get into a Nuclear War. We're more likely to see humane immigration policies. We're less likely to swell the ranks of terrorist groups with people convinced we're at war on their religion.
With Pence we'd be back, essentially, to having George W. Bush in charge. Nobody likes Bush, but I'd have him back in a heartbeat if it meant Trump was out of power.
The problem with you Trumpists right now is you have no idea what liberals believe because you've spent your entire lives in echo chambers and refused to listen to us or even believe what we say about us. Some other idiot in this thread is actually claiming liberals were upset not over Trump getting the presidency, but over Clinton losing it. Do you guys have any idea how unpopular Clinton was with liberals? Some of us talk about her winning the popular vote, but she was unpopular enough that she only got a plurality, she didn't even get 50% of the vote. We voted for her because it was her or Trump. At best we could at least say we voted for the first woman president, and we knew she was qualified, but we also knew she was essentially a neo-con with a few centrist views on social issues.
Her real defining quality was that she wasn't blaming vulnerable minorities for all of America's problems, she wasn't advocating violence against those who protested against her, she wasn't advocating abusing the law to imprison her opponents. Insofar as she was corrupt, it was no more than any other politician, she didn't boast about being corrupt. And she wasn't stupid and impulsive.
That's it. That's something you can say about almost every politician who's won office in the last 100 years. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement. But here we are.
Yes, if Pence isn't tainted by Russian involvement, let him be President. Nobody's going to like it, but the country at least can survive his presidency.
At least one significant member of Trump's administration had to resign almost as soon as he was appointed because he was found to be working with the Russians, and he's being investigated. I'm not sure where you're getting it from that anyone independent at all in a position to know has suggested there's no links between the Trump campaign and Russia - if that were known, there wouldn't have been multiple FBI investigations to begin with.
And if there weren't multiple FBI investigations into Trump's team's connections with Russia, Comey would still have a job.
As a matter of fact there were no businesses that rely on geo locks at all. What's this crap about?
DVDs are 20 years old (for most of the world, 22 if you are Japanese as they had DVD two years before everyone else for some reason.) DVDs are region encoded.
I have a vague memory that they weren't the pioneers, with some games consoles having region encoding even earlier, but I can't find a cite so...
Before that though, there were limits that made crossing borders with electronic content more awkward anyway, especially with movies. As an example VHS tapes were usually tied to one frame rate, resolution, and color encoding system - they'd play in monochrome if you had something compatible with the first two, but if the first two differed they wouldn't play at all.
It's never really been a utopia with electronic content flowing freely across borders, alas.
If a Clinton had won and done this, it would be the wisest act of diplomacy ever.
Clinton wouldn't have done it. That's the point. Fuck it, Bush Jr wouldn't have done it. Can you see any President in living memory, except maybe Reagan (who had an excuse) doing this? I can't.
The big one is probably the bitmaps - I don't mean the images, I mean converting the HTML into easily composited image layers.
HTML and CSS these days is so powerful you can write a compositing window manager in it. Elements can have variable transparency, and it's generally fairly elegant and smooth when animated, even if all you're doing is moving the scrollbar. So at a guess, I'd suggest most web browsers (caution: have not looked at code) are rendering text into bitmaps that are then cached and composited to generate the final screen image. This is also probably why there's a noticeable slowdown when your browser has to insert something, like an ad, that causes elements to be resized and shuffled.
It's more like 10-15 minutes, with a lot of build up, but I do understand where you're coming from. That said, the "Arnie's a good guy?" is more of a "Luke, I am your father" event than "They end up in an office for a little bit and blow it up" type thing.
Slashdot Mirror
Trump is talking about punishing leakers so that the government is less accountable, not dismantling the CIA.
There's not a country in the world that doesn't practice some kinds of censorship, if only related to state secrets, promoting crime, terror, even lying or promoting information known to be false, etc. Slippery slopes are, well, slippery, but that doesn't mean you never clean the slopes.
Nazism (and fascism in general) is a particularly extreme ideology that's inherently violent, both on a microlevel originating (and still existing) as gang level politics whose leaders openly advocate violence against opponents, and macro level where it's caused wars. Advocating for it is doing more than simply advocating a different point of view, it has direct real life consequences for those victimized by fascist groups.
I think there's a strong case for Nazi advocacy to be heavily restricted, and in many cases banned outright, and I think the opposing case is particularly weak in this instance.
There never has been a time when everyone was all "Oooh oooh! Our solution will be so much better if we USE XML!!!11!eleventy". XML has always been exceptionally unpopular with actual developers, it's always been PHBs and the computing community's equivalent of Very Serious People that has forced that god-awful standard on everyone.
Developers have always been trying to come up with better alternatives ever since XML was foisted upon us. It's taken a while, JSON took off because every implementation of Javascript has a parser (and had one before JSON was invented), but it wasn't the first, just the first that was so popular amongst developers that the VSPs had to throw their hands in the air and admit defeat.
More or less yes. Having a text renderer introduces its own complications, including predictable font sizes and fonts that can render every character used by every language in the world. Back in 1996, when DVD was standardized, that was a tall order. Some would say it still is.
Using bitmaps is also more flexible, in theory you can use the subtitle feature to add optional graphics instead of just text.
And given you're talking about a low depth (compressible? I think it's compressed) bitmap that changes once every few seconds, it's not as if there's a lot of overhead in the technique. The main stream already includes at least one 384kbps audio stream, plus an MPEG-2 video stream weighing in at anything from 2-5Mbps. A single 704x480 two color bitmap weighs in at 42k, or about 330 kilobits. One of those every 5 seconds is almost a trace amount of bandwidth.
Not that it changes your question much, but I think a significant number of subtitle systems (I know DVD does this for one) are based on low depth bitmaps, not text. That said, that makes it harder to understand why they'd be so easy to code badly, given bitmaps have an easily calculated maximum size.
No, they'll be fine.
No, every accident will be the car's fault. That'll be it. Rarely any litigation needed. That's a cost saving over the current system all by itself.
Right now, liability is split between car maker and driver. A driver has to pay around $1,000 a year to cover their side of the liability. In self driving cars, the manufacturer would build that into the cost of buying the car (that would add $10,000 for an expected ten year lifetime, if no changes are made.) But, of course, it won't be $10,000, because:
1. The car will be involved in fewer accidents
2. There's no insurer trying to make a profit
3. Litigation will be the exception, not the rule
So, it'll probably be more like $2-3000. Per car. Which might not even be paid up front, I mean, self driving cars will probably have to have a subscription element associated with them anyway, for servicing etc, so it may end up being that instead of paying $1000 a year for insuring your car, plus the cost of new tires, etc, you'll pay $500 a year for keeping the maps updated, the bits that need oiling oiled (I assume there'll be less of that in an electric vehicle), periodic safety check, and the manufacturer can tack on the risk pool funding at the same time.
Self driving cars are a death spiral for GEICO, AllState, Progressive, and the TV channels that rely upon their advertising dollars. Not for the manufacturers themselves.
Yeah, the "charges were dropped because we're unable to continue the investigation for now" thing seems mostly third party spin, analogous to "MP3 is dead because they're not offering licenses for it any more."
So why didn't he? You talk as if Assange was holed up in an embassy throughout the entire Obama years. He wasn't.
TBH, I don't think there was any strong desire to see Assange arrested and tried in the US by the Obama government. You can make all kinds of claims about the degree to which any US government, Obama, Bush, or Trump, was lawless, but actually imprisoning someone requires a trial, and it's far from clear there'd be any grounds and evidence to convict Assange. The most likely result of an unconstitutional extradiction followed by a trial on dubious charges is a humiliating acquittal.
The claim Assange made was even more ridiculous: he was in hiding because Sweden would extradite him with the aim of then extraditing him to the US rather than prosecuting him for an actual crime they believe he committed. Why would the US want him for a flimsy trial they were unlikely to win if Sweden could actually imprison him legitimately? And if they really are that stupid, why wouldn't the UK just extradite to the US directly, given the UK is far more friendly to the US than Sweden is?
Apparently not, see first and second FAQ answers. Sounds interesting, it'll be interesting to see how well it works and how cheap the hardware would be. The major issue will be legacy devices that only support Wifi.
Wifi also needs exclusive spectrum to work properly: try setting two APs to the same frequency and putting them side by side. Most people get a serious reduction in Wifi throughput, of the order of 50-90%, if their neighbor has an AP on the same frequency, and that's despite walls and others obstacles reducing the competing AP's signal to a level that you can't connect to it directly.
LTE and Wifi both use OFDM which is an air interface technology that tolerates a certain amount of noise. So it's unlikely LTE will be unusable in situations where Wifi is usable.
I don't see this as a problem. I'm more concerned that this isn't what the summary says it is: being able to independently implement LTE sounds good to me, but IIRC the major push is for LTE that requires a combination of licensed and unlicensed spectrum, rather than exclusively unlicensed. If they're also working on the latter, then awesome, it'd be nice to see how well an alternative to Wifi works, and something whose security is based upon physical SIM cards rather than passwords could be a big improvement, in theory.
Not... really. OS/2 Warp was the name given to the third version of OS/2. OS/2 was originally Microsoft and IBM's jointly developed successor to MS DOS/PC DOS. The history went like this:
1. OS/2 1.0 was co-developed by Microsoft and IBM as the successor to DOS (not a competitor.) It was not very good, the first version didn't even have a GUI although later versions in the 1.x series had a limited GUI not unlike Windows 3.x
2. Both parties hated the arrangement, and Microsoft and IBM had different ideas as to what the next version of OS/2 should be like. The two initially agreed to work on two more versions, with IBM releasing a short term 32 bit version of the OS called OS/2 2.0, and Microsoft working on a longer term version that would end up being the version after OS/2 2.0.
3. IBM released OS/2 2.0, which was generally praised but not widely adopted; but at this point Microsoft and IBM were completed divided on the future. What Microsoft had developed was clearly so far removed from OS/2 that it wasn't going to be OS/2 2.0's successor. It became Windows NT, and in the mean time Microsoft started selling DOS with Windows 3.x as the true successor to plain old DOS.
4. At this point - the early 1990s - IBM and Microsoft were at war. IBM revamped OS/2 2.0 producing OS/2 3.0 Warp, which it heavily marketed as a better Windows than Windows. PC manufacturers, with a handful of exceptions, completely ignored it, bundling Windows 3.x with their PCs, partially because IBM was considered a major competitor, and, after the MicroChannel debacle, not a company to be trusted.
5. OS/2 4.0 came out about the same time as Windows 95. Microsoft blacklisted IBM and refused to provide them with Windows 95 even for testing on their PCs until literally the night before release. IBM, knowing it had no chance of selling PCs without Windows 95, promptly dropped all development and marketing of OS/2.
Was it any good? Opinions differ. I thought it had some nice features, but it was hampered by poor technology choices from the beginning. It was a better system than 16 bit Windows, but that's not much of a complement.
They might, but if they're OS/2 only, why would they need anything other than the version of OS/2 they already have? And if not, why bother when something like Ubuntu + VirtualBox + FreeDOS can presumably do the same thing? (And that's assuming you want to run an ancient BBS implementation to begin with...)
I think he was saying it was something like:
1. File ridiculous number of patents
2. ????
3. Profit!
ArcaOS isn't open source. From the point of view of most Slashdotters it's just another proprietary operating system, and not even a particularly significant one. I suspect most of us would be more excited by an update to AmigaOS, but even that wouldn't make the cut these days here.
You're right, it doesn't say "Muslim", it just waives protections to anyone who isn't part of a "minority religion" in 7 Muslim majority countries.
And Putin did rather more than endorse Trump.
I wonder, seriously, if Iran had endorsed Clinton and hacked the Republicans and revealed all their dirty laundry (and made routine business look like dirty laundry) if you'd be so complacent.
That report is a summary of the consensus of the various intelligence agencies of the US. It doesn't back up its claims with evidence because (1) it's a summary, and (2) US intelligence agencies don't just share evidence in public, that puts lives in danger. It has not been "debunked", the only way to debunk it is to ask the CIA, FBI, etc, whether they disagree with it, and none have.
Could it be based on nothing? Possibly, but it's exceedingly unlikely. To believe it is based on nothing and entirely made up you'd have to assume that virtually every US intelligence agency has gone partisan and rogue. Even the FBI, which isn't exactly known for being sympathetic to liberal causes and the Democrats would, in your world, have to be entirely run by people who make shit up to damage the Republicans.
That's just not credible.
Of course there's a "deep state", but the notion it's (1) organized and (2) any actions committed by people who are a part of it are against the interests of everyone else is what's dubious.
It is entirely reasonable to suppose that a large number of people in government right now want to see Trump out of power, and are willing to use their power to do so. It's also entirely reasonable to suppose that this is because he's an existential threat to the United States, rather than because they're worried he might take away their power to approve more H1Bs.
I believe he's referring to this..
The quote is:
I don't think it's a smoking gun. But it's still a bizarrely stupid thing to say when everyone is pretty convinced you fired someone for investigating you.
You're saying Liberals don't want a bright, articulate, politician who happens to disagree with them on a handful of issues, and would rather have someone completely incompetent whose politics are beyond most definitions of extreme?
Assuming Pence doesn't take the fall with Trump, I see no reason to fear him more. We're less likely to get into a Nuclear War. We're more likely to see humane immigration policies. We're less likely to swell the ranks of terrorist groups with people convinced we're at war on their religion.
With Pence we'd be back, essentially, to having George W. Bush in charge. Nobody likes Bush, but I'd have him back in a heartbeat if it meant Trump was out of power.
The problem with you Trumpists right now is you have no idea what liberals believe because you've spent your entire lives in echo chambers and refused to listen to us or even believe what we say about us. Some other idiot in this thread is actually claiming liberals were upset not over Trump getting the presidency, but over Clinton losing it. Do you guys have any idea how unpopular Clinton was with liberals? Some of us talk about her winning the popular vote, but she was unpopular enough that she only got a plurality, she didn't even get 50% of the vote. We voted for her because it was her or Trump. At best we could at least say we voted for the first woman president, and we knew she was qualified, but we also knew she was essentially a neo-con with a few centrist views on social issues.
Her real defining quality was that she wasn't blaming vulnerable minorities for all of America's problems, she wasn't advocating violence against those who protested against her, she wasn't advocating abusing the law to imprison her opponents. Insofar as she was corrupt, it was no more than any other politician, she didn't boast about being corrupt. And she wasn't stupid and impulsive.
That's it. That's something you can say about almost every politician who's won office in the last 100 years. It's not exactly a ringing endorsement. But here we are.
Yes, if Pence isn't tainted by Russian involvement, let him be President. Nobody's going to like it, but the country at least can survive his presidency.
At least one significant member of Trump's administration had to resign almost as soon as he was appointed because he was found to be working with the Russians, and he's being investigated. I'm not sure where you're getting it from that anyone independent at all in a position to know has suggested there's no links between the Trump campaign and Russia - if that were known, there wouldn't have been multiple FBI investigations to begin with.
And if there weren't multiple FBI investigations into Trump's team's connections with Russia, Comey would still have a job.
DVDs are 20 years old (for most of the world, 22 if you are Japanese as they had DVD two years before everyone else for some reason.) DVDs are region encoded.
I have a vague memory that they weren't the pioneers, with some games consoles having region encoding even earlier, but I can't find a cite so...
Before that though, there were limits that made crossing borders with electronic content more awkward anyway, especially with movies. As an example VHS tapes were usually tied to one frame rate, resolution, and color encoding system - they'd play in monochrome if you had something compatible with the first two, but if the first two differed they wouldn't play at all.
It's never really been a utopia with electronic content flowing freely across borders, alas.
Clinton wouldn't have done it. That's the point. Fuck it, Bush Jr wouldn't have done it. Can you see any President in living memory, except maybe Reagan (who had an excuse) doing this? I can't.
The big one is probably the bitmaps - I don't mean the images, I mean converting the HTML into easily composited image layers.
HTML and CSS these days is so powerful you can write a compositing window manager in it. Elements can have variable transparency, and it's generally fairly elegant and smooth when animated, even if all you're doing is moving the scrollbar. So at a guess, I'd suggest most web browsers (caution: have not looked at code) are rendering text into bitmaps that are then cached and composited to generate the final screen image. This is also probably why there's a noticeable slowdown when your browser has to insert something, like an ad, that causes elements to be resized and shuffled.
It's more like 10-15 minutes, with a lot of build up, but I do understand where you're coming from. That said, the "Arnie's a good guy?" is more of a "Luke, I am your father" event than "They end up in an office for a little bit and blow it up" type thing.