Personally I believe that Robert Novak deserves to be killed horribly for what he's done. Specifically, I believe that laws should be created allowing for public execution of the spineless pusies like Robert Novak for filing frivilious lawsuits to stifle public opinion.
I'm tempted to get it and trying to rip the tracks with as high a quality as possible...and then e-mail them individually (as WAV files, not MP3s) to Sony.
It's multiple lines of defense. First they argue that they are not bound by US law and if that works then the whole issue is moot. They aren't in any trouble and can go if they please. Now that they've been found to be in US jurisdiction they are arguing that the "law" they violated goes against the US Constitution anyway.
In other words, your laws shouldn't apply to us...but if they do, then *all* of your laws must apply and by those laws the charges are unconstitutional.
What if, after every challenge and appeal, they are found guilty of violating the DMCA. What if after the judgement all employees bog off back to Russia, including Dimitri. How is the US going to enforce a judgement against them?
Re:I knew that Interland stunk already
on
March Netcraft survey
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
What do you expect from a spam-friendly provider? That fact alone means that they are run either by the clueless or the criminal.
I believe that Ogle allows for screenshots, though I won't swear to it. Ogle does have menu support, which I really like.
The only thing I've seen is the SVCD bootleg, so I guess whomever made the rip just modified the image resolution to be 4:3 letterbox rather than widescreen 16:9.
At this point you must exploit the law. Look for possible implications that can be twisted to your advantage and exploit them mercilessly. Someone here suggested that pornographers, as copyright holders, could be considered to benefit from the proposed legislation. As such, you should get the word out that your congressmen are supporting a bill that will greatly benefit the porn industry.
It's two versions of the video on the same side of the DVD-9 disc.
Actually, ABL was refitted for the 4:3 presentation to minimize loss of information with characters cut out of the wide frame reinserted into the 4:3 frame. Very easy to do with CG.
Leonard Nimoy offered commentary on his direction work in Star Trek IV regarding that. He noted that with pan and scan he (or someone else, like an editor) had to decide which part of the movie was most important, but sometimes in wide shots where two characters are speaking the scene had to switch back and forth because the panned and scanned frame wouldn't fit the two characters together. This breaking up of the scene, he commented, was distracting and was why he preferred the wide format.
Note that when movies are filmed full-frame, the director usually films with the intention of only putting important information in the 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 frame (there's a rectangle on the camera display to indicate what's in the shot and what isn't). You can tell when a movie is anamorphic (ie, filmed wide) by looking for lens flares -- oval lens flares are a sure sign that the movie was filmed wide (though the converse is not true: a circular lens flare could be from a specific shot with a special camera or it could be a CG lens flare).
Before I got a lovely 57" widescreen TV I was watching my DVDs on a 27" TV from seven feet away. My vision is terrible, but I still preferred movies in widescreen.
First, most DVD players don't have a "zoom" feature. Mine doesn't, and I think that it's only really common on Toshiba players.
There actually is a standard in the DVD spec for panning and scanning a "wide" image based on the DVD player's setting (16:9 vs 4:3 letterbox vs 4:3 p&s). If it's ever used, it's used in menus that can be displayed wide. Unfortunately it's too flaky to work with the movies themselves.
Another problem is that it would only be useful for 1.77:1 images. A movie that is 2.35:1 (like Blade or Contact or FotR) couldn't be panned and zoomed without still having small black bars at the top and bottom.
I'm not sure how having 16:9 resolution affects it either -- though if allowing a movie to be p&sed by the player would require dropping the 16:9 resolution then you can forget it; widescreen affectionadios are not going to be happy sacrificing image quality to appease the peons who like watching butchered films.
And finally a number of movies aren't filmed directly in the aspect ratio they are shown; they're filmed "full-frame" or at least with more of the image at the top and bottom than what you see onscreen -- it's just that the extra information is matted by the black bars. In those cases you'd look for scenes where you can get away with showing that extra information to minimize the panning and zooming that needs to be done, however there will be times when the top and bottom information shows things that don't need to be there, like set equipment, and CG FX is usually rendered and applied to the finished frame rather than the open frame, so those shots need to be cropped more. Very complicated work and doing that on the fly is not in the DVD spec.
TV aspect ratio is 1.33:1. This is also the "academy" ratio that movies used before studios went to wider frame. Some people were upset that Gone with the Wind was released in a "full-frame" only edition -- not realising that the movie was filmed that way (as were all movies of the era).
Widescreen TV aspect ratio is 1.77:1. This is narrower than both of the common movie aspect ratios, however, which are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Movies in 1.85:1 are often filmed full-frame or Super35, so usually you can just open up the matte a little bit without introducing complications and thus the movie fills the entire screen. If not, you could just zoom in a bit and the amount of information lost in the sides is miniscule (especially compared to what you get from cropping to 4:3). 2.35:1 movies will still retain black bars at the top and bottom -- they're just smaller than the ones you'd get on a 4:3 screen.
I've not known New Line to be as big on DTS as some other studios, like Dreamworks or Universal.
Also, FotR was filmed in Super35, so there might actually be additional material above and below the black bars. Still, even Super35 is wider than a TV screen so you still have to crop the sides -- and the "additional" material in the frame usually isn't intended to be there, sometimes includes things that should be seen (and as such would be panned and scanned anyway) and FX shots are usually done on the matted frame rather than the open one (so FX shots are panned and scanned anyway).
If you want to convince your friends, find some movies where the additional information can be seen. Off the top of my head I can identify the scene in Star Trek: First Contact where Picard asks Data to deactivate his emotion chip. There's a website somewhere that shows still-shots from various movies for comparison purposes.
It won't stop people from complaining. It was announced before release that there would be two releases of the movie Dogma -- it was not as long-term notice as FotR, but still before the release of the "standard" edition and it was only because there were complications in putting together the special edition -- and people still whined about being "ripped off"
Similar? Doubtful. I don't think that the screener DVD was 16:9 "enhanced" -- and you can bet that a New Line release is going to be formatted for widescreen TVs. It will probably have a new digital master as well, the screener probably was made without regard to possible digital artifacts (since it was made for reviewing the movie as a film, not as a commercial DVD).
The only bootleg I have (FotR -- and I think that everyone has that) has a message stating that "Sale or Rental of this movie is ILLEGAL". Since we neither purchased nor rented the discs we received (they were gifted to us), I guess it's legal.
...because if CBDTPA passes I will seek out DVD bootleggers to obtain my movies. I'm even willing to pay more on a bootleg than on a "legit" disc just on principle.
Of course, I'm sure that the regulations imposed by the CBDTPA will insure that no more illegal DVD copying ever happens.
Anyone know whether or not there's a date set for voting on the bill? I want to call my senators to voice my opposition, but their offices are closed until Monday. I'd rather speak with a staffer in person rather than leaving a message on a machine.
Slashdot Mirror
Personally I believe that Robert Novak deserves to be killed horribly for what he's done. Specifically, I believe that laws should be created allowing for public execution of the spineless pusies like Robert Novak for filing frivilious lawsuits to stifle public opinion.
I never said that there was a problem. I was just explaining why the company would use two apparently contradictory lines of defense.
Heh.
I'm tempted to get it and trying to rip the tracks with as high a quality as possible...and then e-mail them individually (as WAV files, not MP3s) to Sony.
It's multiple lines of defense. First they argue that they are not bound by US law and if that works then the whole issue is moot. They aren't in any trouble and can go if they please. Now that they've been found to be in US jurisdiction they are arguing that the "law" they violated goes against the US Constitution anyway.
In other words, your laws shouldn't apply to us...but if they do, then *all* of your laws must apply and by those laws the charges are unconstitutional.
What if, after every challenge and appeal, they are found guilty of violating the DMCA. What if after the judgement all employees bog off back to Russia, including Dimitri. How is the US going to enforce a judgement against them?
What do you expect from a spam-friendly provider? That fact alone means that they are run either by the clueless or the criminal.
I saw FFIII and was thinking Famicom because I'm used to the Japanese number system.
As for Cid, you don't revive him but you can prevent him from dying in the first place (which is documented in most of the FAQs).
I'm considering modding my PS2 just so I can get a bootleg of the game. I figure if Disney is calling me a theif I might as well make good on it.
I believe that Ogle allows for screenshots, though I won't swear to it. Ogle does have menu support, which I really like.
The only thing I've seen is the SVCD bootleg, so I guess whomever made the rip just modified the image resolution to be 4:3 letterbox rather than widescreen 16:9.
At this point you must exploit the law. Look for possible implications that can be twisted to your advantage and exploit them mercilessly. Someone here suggested that pornographers, as copyright holders, could be considered to benefit from the proposed legislation. As such, you should get the word out that your congressmen are supporting a bill that will greatly benefit the porn industry.
It's two versions of the video on the same side of the DVD-9 disc.
Actually, ABL was refitted for the 4:3 presentation to minimize loss of information with characters cut out of the wide frame reinserted into the 4:3 frame. Very easy to do with CG.
Leonard Nimoy offered commentary on his direction work in Star Trek IV regarding that. He noted that with pan and scan he (or someone else, like an editor) had to decide which part of the movie was most important, but sometimes in wide shots where two characters are speaking the scene had to switch back and forth because the panned and scanned frame wouldn't fit the two characters together. This breaking up of the scene, he commented, was distracting and was why he preferred the wide format.
Note that when movies are filmed full-frame, the director usually films with the intention of only putting important information in the 2.35:1 or 1.85:1 frame (there's a rectangle on the camera display to indicate what's in the shot and what isn't). You can tell when a movie is anamorphic (ie, filmed wide) by looking for lens flares -- oval lens flares are a sure sign that the movie was filmed wide (though the converse is not true: a circular lens flare could be from a specific shot with a special camera or it could be a CG lens flare).
Before I got a lovely 57" widescreen TV I was watching my DVDs on a 27" TV from seven feet away. My vision is terrible, but I still preferred movies in widescreen.
Doesn't work that well.
First, most DVD players don't have a "zoom" feature. Mine doesn't, and I think that it's only really common on Toshiba players.
There actually is a standard in the DVD spec for panning and scanning a "wide" image based on the DVD player's setting (16:9 vs 4:3 letterbox vs 4:3 p&s). If it's ever used, it's used in menus that can be displayed wide. Unfortunately it's too flaky to work with the movies themselves.
Another problem is that it would only be useful for 1.77:1 images. A movie that is 2.35:1 (like Blade or Contact or FotR) couldn't be panned and zoomed without still having small black bars at the top and bottom.
I'm not sure how having 16:9 resolution affects it either -- though if allowing a movie to be p&sed by the player would require dropping the 16:9 resolution then you can forget it; widescreen affectionadios are not going to be happy sacrificing image quality to appease the peons who like watching butchered films.
And finally a number of movies aren't filmed directly in the aspect ratio they are shown; they're filmed "full-frame" or at least with more of the image at the top and bottom than what you see onscreen -- it's just that the extra information is matted by the black bars. In those cases you'd look for scenes where you can get away with showing that extra information to minimize the panning and zooming that needs to be done, however there will be times when the top and bottom information shows things that don't need to be there, like set equipment, and CG FX is usually rendered and applied to the finished frame rather than the open frame, so those shots need to be cropped more. Very complicated work and doing that on the fly is not in the DVD spec.
TV aspect ratio is 1.33:1. This is also the "academy" ratio that movies used before studios went to wider frame. Some people were upset that Gone with the Wind was released in a "full-frame" only edition -- not realising that the movie was filmed that way (as were all movies of the era).
Widescreen TV aspect ratio is 1.77:1. This is narrower than both of the common movie aspect ratios, however, which are 1.85:1 and 2.35:1. Movies in 1.85:1 are often filmed full-frame or Super35, so usually you can just open up the matte a little bit without introducing complications and thus the movie fills the entire screen. If not, you could just zoom in a bit and the amount of information lost in the sides is miniscule (especially compared to what you get from cropping to 4:3).
2.35:1 movies will still retain black bars at the top and bottom -- they're just smaller than the ones you'd get on a 4:3 screen.
I've not known New Line to be as big on DTS as some other studios, like Dreamworks or Universal.
Also, FotR was filmed in Super35, so there might actually be additional material above and below the black bars. Still, even Super35 is wider than a TV screen so you still have to crop the sides -- and the "additional" material in the frame usually isn't intended to be there, sometimes includes things that should be seen (and as such would be panned and scanned anyway) and FX shots are usually done on the matted frame rather than the open one (so FX shots are panned and scanned anyway).
If you want to convince your friends, find some movies where the additional information can be seen. Off the top of my head I can identify the scene in Star Trek: First Contact where Picard asks Data to deactivate his emotion chip. There's a website somewhere that shows still-shots from various movies for comparison purposes.
It won't stop people from complaining. It was announced before release that there would be two releases of the movie Dogma -- it was not as long-term notice as FotR, but still before the release of the "standard" edition and it was only because there were complications in putting together the special edition -- and people still whined about being "ripped off"
Similar? Doubtful. I don't think that the screener DVD was 16:9 "enhanced" -- and you can bet that a New Line release is going to be formatted for widescreen TVs. It will probably have a new digital master as well, the screener probably was made without regard to possible digital artifacts (since it was made for reviewing the movie as a film, not as a commercial DVD).
The only bootleg I have (FotR -- and I think that everyone has that) has a message stating that "Sale or Rental of this movie is ILLEGAL". Since we neither purchased nor rented the discs we received (they were gifted to us), I guess it's legal.
...because if CBDTPA passes I will seek out DVD bootleggers to obtain my movies. I'm even willing to pay more on a bootleg than on a "legit" disc just on principle.
Of course, I'm sure that the regulations imposed by the CBDTPA will insure that no more illegal DVD copying ever happens.
Anyone know whether or not there's a date set for voting on the bill? I want to call my senators to voice my opposition, but their offices are closed until Monday. I'd rather speak with a staffer in person rather than leaving a message on a machine.
According to the article, it's still listed as XP. I just no longer stops at POST with the message about how the processor is not an MP processor.
Regarding "I think spammers should be forced to pay by donating an organ for each forged header."
Who would want an organ from a spammer in them? I'd sooner trust an organ from a pig, at least it's a mammal.
Lethal Protection.
What, are you suggesting that the Babel Fish is fictional?