I've been following the progress of Telegen for quite some time. They've been showing their technology on the floor of the Consumer Electronics Show for the past few years.
I attend the Winter CES in Las Vegas, as well as the CEDIA show. I can tell you, every maker of music jukeboxes I talked to was very interested. MP3 licence fees cut into their profits, and if they had a free (as speech) encoder that they could optimize for their application, they would be very happy. That it is also free (as in beer) makes them overjoyed.
To give you an example of why any movie buff needs to crack regions:
Citizen Kane, one of the most honored films of all times, the AFI's number one film on their list, is not available on DVD in the US.
I bought my copy in the UK, and can't imagine a comprehensive film collection without this vitally important film. Why is every Adam Sandler film available on DVD in the US, and Orson Welles' masterpiece isn't?
I own 500 DVDs, and love the format, but I can't imagine not being able to play any DVD I wish. Region coding is indefensible.
My wife and I have been sharing large numbers of songs via Napster and several other file sharing programs. The flow of songs continues undiminished, but tragically the flow of accompanying information has stopped. The most important part of Napster was the chat. I'd see people getting an obscure artist, and message them. Or they'd be so happy to find a particular song and they want to know where I had first heard of this. I developed several good friends from Napster, talking about music. But most importantly, we'd talk about similar artists to the one downloaded. "Oh, you like A? You're going to LOVE B!" In this way, my wife and I have introduced hundreds of people to hundreds of artists...and doubtless sold many, many CDs. (We've never had complete albums if they were currently available.)
Gnutella, AudioGalaxy and most of the remaining file sharing apps don't have this chat system. You have no way to use the most valuable part of file sharing, the taste of people whose taste matches your own. You can find what you already know, but you have no way to discover ones you don't.
In their quest to protect their current profits, the RIAA cost themselves many more future sales.
I think the RIAA is working really hard on trying to shoot themselves in the foot.
On alt.religion.scientology the critics grade various ham-fisted COS tactics on the "Foot Bullet Scale", ranging from "foot BB" to "foot bazooka" to full on "foot nuke". The Launch lawsuit seems to be a bazooka - suing over something that nobody but a lawyer could see as harmful to their interests.
By seeming to go after everyone and everything that doesn't play exactly the way RIAA wants them to play, people are going to get really tired of this big bully. It's one thing to go after people copying copyrighted songs, but to say it's a problem to let people have this level of customization? People are going to start seeing through the show they're putting on, all their claims, and see what they're really doing.
The RIAA position appears to be "you're going to buy what we want to sell you and you're going to like it, dammit!".
Unfortunatly, 99% of people who buy music have no idea who the RIAA is or what they do.
No, they blame the "music industry". It's a small matter to learn that what they think of as the the music industry is represented by the RIAA. You don't have to know if the giant gorilla is named "King Kong" or "Mighty Joe Young" to know that it's tearing the crap out of the city and not like it.
Jane and Joe Average do watch "Behind The Music" and anyone who has watched more than one episode is well aware that the most of the people involved at record companies and in management make a slime mold sprayed with an inch thick layer of WD-40 seem seem non-slimy by comparison.
Yes, YOU ARE, you can't say you're a practising Jedi, light sabres just don't exist (unfortunatly...;)
...and according to Episode 1, you'd have to have a particular level of midichlorians in your blood? If you don't have them, the Jedi Council won't train you, therefore you are not a Jedi.
Maybe you can apply with the Sith? I hear they're hiring.
So what made you think that being some kind of intelligent computer kid would give you exemption from gym class? No wonder they made you sit down and do nothing!
The point is that they had no interest in furthering my education in areas where I had displayed true aptitude. Instead, they showed that all they were interested in was in trying to make everyone the same. Gym class was a hell-pit of bullies, and as the administration had no interest in diciplining the bullies (generally, the ones who were good at sports) so instead they forbade me from doing what I was good at. As a result, I didn't get my hands on a computer for nearly a decade. If I had started hacking on that old IBM 370, I have no idea where I would have wound up.
These "educators" showed that "education" was far lower on their list of priorities than submission to their will. That is sick.
I'm pretty sure this would not count as an attractive nuisance. The owner of a bright flashing sign which distracts motorists might be liable for car crashes nearby would qualify, and your pool example might qualify. But even if the computer system was advertising itself as a hacking target to the casual observer (which I don't suppose it is), I would hope that this doesn't qualify as an attractive nuisance.
It's possible. The computer at a school is going to attract hacking attempts from students. It's been going on since computers had first been put in schools. The student hacking into the school computer is part of our culture - see films going as far back as War Games. "Just Say No" works about as well with hacking into school computers as it does with drugs. No administrator could reasonably claim that they didn't expect that hacking attempts would be made.
Otherwise we'd have store owners liable when deviants steal attractive goods from their shops... no?
Yes, but I'm talking about a civil tort rather than a crime. And if the store owner doesn't take reasonable steps to minimize the threat of thefts, the insurance company can refuse to cover the losses.
I would feel better if you were making the (almost equally outlandish, but at least causally appropriate) claim that his parents should be liable for keeping rope or cord around in the house!
I don't want to open an entirely different discussion, but if you were talking about a gun, in most places the parents would bear some part of the responsibility.
If the administrators of this computer system maintained reasonable security procedures...they have nothing to worry about. But I'd bet it will come out that passwords haven't been changed in years, dormant accounts haven't been deleted, security patches haven't been applied, etc. If that's the case, the parents have a case for the system being an "attractive nuisance".
Terorizing a student is not an effective replacement for good security.
Fixing security holes is a good idea, but it's not like they were running life support for the students or something. You make it sound like an act of negligence!
"A potentially harmful object so inviting or interesting to a child that it would lure the child onto the property to investigate."
It applies to things like swimming pools, but it should equally apply to things like computer systems so poorly maintained that script kiddies (or larval stage hackers) can easily crack them. If a pool owner is legally responsible for some kid drowning because the gate on his fence was broken, the school district should be liable for a computer system that multiple 13 year old kids have broken into. This is as if several kids have drown in the pool.
I'm not sure about your creative punishment idea. It's a pretty creative idea, and I'm sure some kids would go along with it. Any kid who's honestly a jerk and is malicious about it is just gonna fess up some random weak link that he found, or just say "I was just poking around, someone left their account on."
I read the article, and from what I can tell, the kid was bright and non-malicious. He appeared to be hacking for curiousity (the classic reason). I'm sure that he would have fixed the security holes. Hell, the "tiger team" approach is one of the only reliable ways to audit the security on a system. The school administrators were brain-dead.
Disclaimer: I'm not un-biased. I had completed all the computer coursework that my Junior High offered in a month. Obviously, I should have been allowed to learn programming (home computers were not an option back in the early 1970s). But I was forced to sit there and do nothing as punishment for not wanting to go to gym class. Rational school administrators are the exception, not the rule. Most are secret facists who get into a job where they can exercise autocratic control over people who do not have the rights granted to adults.
If you're going to break the rules/laws, be willing to suck it up and accept the punishment, and think it through.
You act as if "the rules" are things handed down by God. Rule are just the expressions of people, and yes, rules can be wrong and flawed. Punishments, likewise, can be wrong and flawed. Bad rules should be broken.
Fitzsimons said Shinjan wasn't the first student suspended for breaking into the school district's computer system.
At the risk of appearing Troll-like, one has to ask -
Why don't they fix they damn holes before they kill another kid?!?
I mean, seriously. How incompetent are the IT losers working at the school district that they've been hacked several times? Why don't they take a more progressive approach like - gosh, I dunno - making the punishment a 2000 word report on exactly how you broke in and suggestions on how to fix the hole?
De-Interlacers are somewhat expensive devices that could probably be reasonably implemented as part of the playback. I'm sure it wouldn't be as top notch as a dedicated processor or high end progressive DVD Player, but it seems like this could be done nicely, and then we could pull one more component out of the chain.
See the perfectly functional DTV over at SourceForge. I've dumped my DVDO iScan in favor of this free program. The folks at AVS Forum are very interested in this area and have been hacking the Tivo. It's a great site.
I think it sends a special kind of signal hidden in the overscan area which then activates a special Macrovision chip in your VCR. These chips are a requirement so every VCR has one.
This is not the case. VCRs do not have a Macrovision chip. This is a quick explanation, and might have an error or two:
The Macrovision signal is primarily a set of flashing white squares in the "vertical blanking interval" (VBI), the area just above and just below, the rest of the picture. A television tube's Automatic Gain Control (AGC) circuit ignores these flashing squares as they don't appear on the screen. But most VCR's AGC looks at the entire picture. The VBI should be black, or have some information like Teletext or close caption data...but NOT flashing squares. So the AGC, trying to control the gain of the signal being recorded to the tape, raises and lowers the gain as the squares flash from white to black. So your dubbed program flashes.
Macrovision removers replace the flashing squares with the black that should be there in the first place. Some of us with projection TVs have to use Macrovision removers in order to simply watch our legally purchased VHS tapes, as the Macrovision signal screws up our picture. Macrovision reps are scumbags and lie like dogs even when confronted with evidence.
Anyway, there is no chip. VCRs vary in their sensitivity to the Macrovision crap.
Since the Fraunhofer Institut is not a large corporation and it isn't a US National organization, I'd say that it would have little chance in hell of fighting MS in court. MS could say that the 'German company is un-american and trying to stifle american innovation'.
Fraunhofer is a huge research institute with massive economic and political power, but more importantly their licencing of MP3 is handled by Thomson/RCA which is huge in the USA. MS could not rip Thomson off and get away with it.
Family Circus is to comics as Boyzone is to music.
It's not as if the net hasn't tried to help this situation. The classic Dysfunctional Family Circus would take a normal, horribly unfunny Family Circus image, delete the original banal caption and invite visitors to add their own caption. The best of these, chosen by editors (people who had submitted many funny captions) would be added. This went on for 500 cartoons before Bil Keane's lawyers shut it down.
The original serial copy management system that by-law must be implemented on digital home audio recording devices , and is in use on CD (and in them mp3 format, but nobody uses it) that never really gets used (I'm sure some DAT drives use it) has 2 bits.
1 bit for 'copyright' and another bit for 'original'.
Does anyone have a utility to change these bits on MP3s? I found one, but it was unreliable and screwed up some of the files, causing them to play at double speed. Are there any "MP3 Repair Kits" out there?
Re:And this is on Slashdot because ...
on
Hannibal's Return
·
· Score: 2
What about 70mm, do you hate that as well?
70mm is a perfectly fine thing, except that they haven't actually shot a film in it, other than the VistaVision effects shots, in decades. 70mm prints are optical blow-ups from 35mm.
Yes, Mr. Coward, I seek out 70mm prints. The local Imax (Chicago's Navy Pier) will soon be showing a 70mm roadshow print of "2001", and yeah, I'll be right there the first night.
For that matter, do you even know about it -- it's been a few years since 70mm prints saw widespread use, and you sound like one of these people who is unaware of anything technology-related that didn't happen in the last 24 hours.
Bite me. I'm 40 years old and have been observing technology for years. I've see 70mm roadshow prints in their original release.
If you were sitting that close to the screen and didn't find the pixel structure objectionable, get your bloody eyes checked (although 40 feet really isn't that big for a movie screen).
The only space available was right down at front, which was fine by me as I specifically was there to see how well the image held up very close to the screen. And it did. The original film grain of the 35mm negative was visible. How the hell was I supposed to judge it? From the SMPTE approved distance? You were the clod who suggested that the pixels were "a foot across". I suspect that you have never actually see this technology and are just arguing.
"Scratches, dust, breaks", eh? Yes, those things happen all by themselves -- on every piece of film ever made. You're right, it's impossible to get aroung those things by using wet-gate projection, proper handling, and polyester film stock (which is strong enough to tow a car). Geez, what was I thinking?
You weren't. No theater, other than special test showings at Kodak's test theaters and maybe at the Museum of the Moving Image, uses wet-gate projection. That is exclusively for telecine - for instance the telecine done while making an HDTV transfer.
The sad fact is that theater chains do not employ trained film professionals. They employ 16 year olds. And those 16 year olds are less likely to screw up putting in a pair of DVDs than to properly assemble a bunch of reels in the right order without making a hash of it. I can't imagine how much worse the situation would be if they were to try to handle a wet-gate as well.
And you're also right that the only measure of a technology's worth is it's age. That's it -- nothing else matters. If it's 100 years old, we shouldn't use it (nevermind for the moment that the basic design for a modern computer is more than 100 years old too -- ever heard of Charles Babbage?)
The guy who never actually built anything? Yeah, I'm composing this on a giant, clattering difference engine, brass wheels spinning...
Babbage's "basic design" wasn't built until a few years ago.
The day of chemical photography has passed. I do not mourn it.
On that note, I'd like to introduce my new 1-bit/1-KHz digital audio system. I invented it 5 minutes ago, so it's automatically better than anything else that came before. And it's "digital" which automatically means it's perfect. After all, that's what "digital" means -- it's a synonym for perfect.
Forget the "Walkman", here we have the "Strawman".
Sheesh. You know, I really hate having to resort to being so rude, but frankly, none of your "arguments" add up to a hill of beans.
I sign my name, which puts me at least half a hill ahead of you.
Note: I understand that digital will takeover eventually, and I honestly won't mind... if it is done right. However, there are people like Phil Barlow of Disney saying that current systems are "good enough", and then there are people like you who are cheering them on. Who the hell wants future standards to be based around "good enough"? For crying out loud, why not go for extremely high quality? The minimum specs for a digital projection standard sould be something like 4000x2000 resolution (yes, I know, that's a non-standard aspect ratio -- I'm thinking non-square pixels here), from an uncompressed (or lossless-compressed) 10-bit logarithmic per color component Cineon data file. No 8-bit linear per color component data, no 4:2:2 color sampling, and definitely no lossy compression. And as I said, that should be the minimum.
No need. The fast is that you've seen films that have been transferred to HDTV and re-output to film for effects work and haven't even noticed it. "Pleasantville" was done in that way. Actual filmmakers do not object to the HDTV standard. Besides, most of them are actually using 1080p/24 (a mistake, in my opinion 24 fps should go they way of the dinosaur) instead of 1080i/30.
Lastly, with regards to Roger Ebert's comments, I assume you were referring to this essay in which he criticized digital projection systems that had lower-than-HDTV resolution (such as TI's 1280x1024 systems). That's a very legitimate complaint. And he did not, as you said in your original post, advocate going with bigger pieces of film, he was praising a demonstration of Dean Goodhill's Maxivision system which makes more effecient use of standard 35mm film (not a bigger piece of film).
By playing 25mm film at 48fps, it doubles the number of film cans shipped to theaters, doubles the number of splices needed to be performed, doubles the number of opportunities for things to go wrong. Yes, it reduces the film grain and the visibility of scratches, but only by making all the other hassles and headaches of film projection worse. Besides, if this was the solution, why didn't theater owners start demanding the 60-fps projection of Doug Trumball's ShowScan system from years ago? (Yes, I've seen ShowScan, at the theater at Niagra Falls). Because ShowScan would have tripled the amount of film that would have to be handled.
BTW, Maxivision.com is an eye care specialist. Perhaps you should have a talk with them.
Re:And this is on Slashdot because ...
on
Hannibal's Return
·
· Score: 2
Ebert opposes digital projection because it sucks, and I have to agree. I've seen TI's stupid "DLP" crap, and the pixels look like they're about a foot across. Ugh. I want them to bring back 70mm, not go with overgrown TV. (BTW, do you know anything about it other than it's "digital"? Like what the resolution, color, and contrast ranges are? How they compare to film?)
Yes, I've seen virtually every digital projector on the market, from the first time TI debuted DLP at CES and NAB to the most recent versions. No way in hell does it look like a pixel is "a foot across". I've seen JVC/Hughes' 12000 projector at a special showing at NAB and was closer to the screen than anyone else, and while I could spot the 3 burned on red pixels, the 1 burned on green pixel and the 2 burned off blue pixels (this was a prototype), I was not able to see any distinction between the pixels in the course of the reguler film. This was an HD showing of "Shakespere In Love" on a 40' wide screen, and I was less than 15' from the actual screen. I could see details on the lace being worn by Gweneth Paltrow. I attended the HD Film Festival, I do IT work for the Chicago International Film Festival and I dearly love movies. And I wait anxiously for the demise of every single 35mm film projector, with their weave and flicker, scratches, dust, breaks and all the rest of the crap that goes along with a 100 year old technology.
Re:And this is on Slashdot because ...
on
Hannibal's Return
·
· Score: 2
I don't go to Ebert's site for tech news.
And a good idea too. Ebert is a total clod about technology, opposing digital projection trying to push the idea of a larger, even more problematic film format. Talk about unclear on the concept.
By the way, never believe him if he says a film has a confusing plot. I've seen him at showings here in Chicago, and he usually waits until the film has started to visit the snack bar, so he can miss important plot points.
Jesus. Don't let your obvious seething hatred of Jon Katz put words into his mouth. Where did he "push" for a "stronger rating system?" He is simply pointing out a glaring inconsistency in the MPAA's logic: unbelievable violence is okey-dokey, but nudity is evil and must be banned and those who participate in it and enjoy it will earn an eternity of unimaginable torture because of it.
Just remember what Kyle's Mom, Sheila Broflovski said:
Just remember what the MPAA says: Horrific, deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words!
Re:Cannibalism is NOT ENTERTAINMENT.
on
Hannibal's Return
·
· Score: 2
For crying out loud, when will we put an end to the tide of filth masquerading as entertainment that pours forth daily from the sewers of Hollywood ? Is the idea of eating a live human's brain really entertaining ? Maybe if you are a psycho.
You sound like one of those bozos who only goes to see one film a year. The truth is far more complex than you imagine. The "Hollywood" you blithely tar produces many films, some repulsive, some uplifting. Sadly, uplifting films that enoble the human spirit, films that ask important questions, films that frighten without appealing to visceral...do shit at the box office. Did you go see "You Can Count On Me", "The Iron Giant", "In The Company of Men"?
Is it any wonder our children are all growing up to be psychopaths and murderers when they are fed this daily diet of massacre ?
Clod. Read some history, ok? These are actually some of the least violent times in human history. We don't currently have public executions. That was considered a family outing a couple of hundred years ago. Perhaps you would prefer the soft of family values embodied by the folks in Salem MA and burn people alive?
Its about time decent people took action against this. In the same way we need gun control, "Hannibal" is the best argument yet that we need more censorship in this country.
Crawl back under your bridge, Troll.
Sure people will whine about free speech, but I don't see anything in the constitution about the right to make and distribute corrupting pornographic filth.
Read Nadine Strossen's "Defending Pornography".
I really have had enough. America used to be a safe and morally decent place to live. Recently our standing in the world has taken a nose-dive. Liberal interpretations of the constitution are to blame. Maybe George W will turn back the tide, but I am not holding my breath. What is needed is a grassroots rejection of all Hollywood values.
It's not Hollywood's values. Hollywood offers a wide range of film embodying every sort of moral viewpoint. Look at the movie listings. There are all sorts of films playing, and only ONE features canibalism.
Let's see:
Down to Earth
Recess: School's Out
Sweet November
In the Mood for Love
Hannibal
The Wedding Planner
Saving Silverman
Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon
Cast Away
Save the Last Dance
Traffic
Valentine
Chocolat
O Brother, Where Art Thou
The Invisible Circus
Shadow of the Vampire
From that list from IMDB, only two are "horror" films, and only one features cannibalism (to my knowledge. Who told you that you had to see "Hanibal" anyway? See "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" instead. Or "Traffic". Or "Cast Away". Or "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". Or just piss off.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been following the progress of Telegen for quite some time. They've been showing their technology on the floor of the Consumer Electronics Show for the past few years.
I attend the Winter CES in Las Vegas, as well as the CEDIA show. I can tell you, every maker of music jukeboxes I talked to was very interested. MP3 licence fees cut into their profits, and if they had a free (as speech) encoder that they could optimize for their application, they would be very happy. That it is also free (as in beer) makes them overjoyed.
To give you an example of why any movie buff needs to crack regions:
Citizen Kane, one of the most honored films of all times, the AFI's number one film on their list, is not available on DVD in the US.
I bought my copy in the UK, and can't imagine a comprehensive film collection without this vitally important film. Why is every Adam Sandler film available on DVD in the US, and Orson Welles' masterpiece isn't?
I own 500 DVDs, and love the format, but I can't imagine not being able to play any DVD I wish. Region coding is indefensible.
My wife and I have been sharing large numbers of songs via Napster and several other file sharing programs. The flow of songs continues undiminished, but tragically the flow of accompanying information has stopped. The most important part of Napster was the chat. I'd see people getting an obscure artist, and message them. Or they'd be so happy to find a particular song and they want to know where I had first heard of this. I developed several good friends from Napster, talking about music. But most importantly, we'd talk about similar artists to the one downloaded. "Oh, you like A? You're going to LOVE B!" In this way, my wife and I have introduced hundreds of people to hundreds of artists...and doubtless sold many, many CDs. (We've never had complete albums if they were currently available.)
Gnutella, AudioGalaxy and most of the remaining file sharing apps don't have this chat system. You have no way to use the most valuable part of file sharing, the taste of people whose taste matches your own. You can find what you already know, but you have no way to discover ones you don't.
In their quest to protect their current profits, the RIAA cost themselves many more future sales.
On alt.religion.scientology the critics grade various ham-fisted COS tactics on the "Foot Bullet Scale", ranging from "foot BB" to "foot bazooka" to full on "foot nuke". The Launch lawsuit seems to be a bazooka - suing over something that nobody but a lawyer could see as harmful to their interests.
The RIAA position appears to be "you're going to buy what we want to sell you and you're going to like it, dammit!".
No, they blame the "music industry". It's a small matter to learn that what they think of as the the music industry is represented by the RIAA. You don't have to know if the giant gorilla is named "King Kong" or "Mighty Joe Young" to know that it's tearing the crap out of the city and not like it.
Jane and Joe Average do watch "Behind The Music" and anyone who has watched more than one episode is well aware that the most of the people involved at record companies and in management make a slime mold sprayed with an inch thick layer of WD-40 seem seem non-slimy by comparison.
Hanlon's Razor:
...and according to Episode 1, you'd have to have a particular level of midichlorians in your blood? If you don't have them, the Jedi Council won't train you, therefore you are not a Jedi.
Maybe you can apply with the Sith? I hear they're hiring.
The point is that they had no interest in furthering my education in areas where I had displayed true aptitude. Instead, they showed that all they were interested in was in trying to make everyone the same. Gym class was a hell-pit of bullies, and as the administration had no interest in diciplining the bullies (generally, the ones who were good at sports) so instead they forbade me from doing what I was good at. As a result, I didn't get my hands on a computer for nearly a decade. If I had started hacking on that old IBM 370, I have no idea where I would have wound up.
These "educators" showed that "education" was far lower on their list of priorities than submission to their will. That is sick.
It's possible. The computer at a school is going to attract hacking attempts from students. It's been going on since computers had first been put in schools. The student hacking into the school computer is part of our culture - see films going as far back as War Games. "Just Say No" works about as well with hacking into school computers as it does with drugs. No administrator could reasonably claim that they didn't expect that hacking attempts would be made.
Yes, but I'm talking about a civil tort rather than a crime. And if the store owner doesn't take reasonable steps to minimize the threat of thefts, the insurance company can refuse to cover the losses.
I don't want to open an entirely different discussion, but if you were talking about a gun, in most places the parents would bear some part of the responsibility.
If the administrators of this computer system maintained reasonable security procedures...they have nothing to worry about. But I'd bet it will come out that passwords haven't been changed in years, dormant accounts haven't been deleted, security patches haven't been applied, etc. If that's the case, the parents have a case for the system being an "attractive nuisance".
Terorizing a student is not an effective replacement for good security.
There's a legal concept called an Attractive Nuisance -
It applies to things like swimming pools, but it should equally apply to things like computer systems so poorly maintained that script kiddies (or larval stage hackers) can easily crack them. If a pool owner is legally responsible for some kid drowning because the gate on his fence was broken, the school district should be liable for a computer system that multiple 13 year old kids have broken into. This is as if several kids have drown in the pool.
I read the article, and from what I can tell, the kid was bright and non-malicious. He appeared to be hacking for curiousity (the classic reason). I'm sure that he would have fixed the security holes. Hell, the "tiger team" approach is one of the only reliable ways to audit the security on a system. The school administrators were brain-dead.
Disclaimer: I'm not un-biased. I had completed all the computer coursework that my Junior High offered in a month. Obviously, I should have been allowed to learn programming (home computers were not an option back in the early 1970s). But I was forced to sit there and do nothing as punishment for not wanting to go to gym class. Rational school administrators are the exception, not the rule. Most are secret facists who get into a job where they can exercise autocratic control over people who do not have the rights granted to adults.
You act as if "the rules" are things handed down by God. Rule are just the expressions of people, and yes, rules can be wrong and flawed. Punishments, likewise, can be wrong and flawed. Bad rules should be broken.
At the risk of appearing Troll-like, one has to ask -
Why don't they fix they damn holes before they kill another kid?!?
I mean, seriously. How incompetent are the IT losers working at the school district that they've been hacked several times? Why don't they take a more progressive approach like - gosh, I dunno - making the punishment a 2000 word report on exactly how you broke in and suggestions on how to fix the hole?
See the perfectly functional DTV over at SourceForge. I've dumped my DVDO iScan in favor of this free program. The folks at AVS Forum are very interested in this area and have been hacking the Tivo. It's a great site.
This is not the case. VCRs do not have a Macrovision chip. This is a quick explanation, and might have an error or two:
The Macrovision signal is primarily a set of flashing white squares in the "vertical blanking interval" (VBI), the area just above and just below, the rest of the picture. A television tube's Automatic Gain Control (AGC) circuit ignores these flashing squares as they don't appear on the screen. But most VCR's AGC looks at the entire picture. The VBI should be black, or have some information like Teletext or close caption data...but NOT flashing squares. So the AGC, trying to control the gain of the signal being recorded to the tape, raises and lowers the gain as the squares flash from white to black. So your dubbed program flashes.
Macrovision removers replace the flashing squares with the black that should be there in the first place. Some of us with projection TVs have to use Macrovision removers in order to simply watch our legally purchased VHS tapes, as the Macrovision signal screws up our picture. Macrovision reps are scumbags and lie like dogs even when confronted with evidence.
Anyway, there is no chip. VCRs vary in their sensitivity to the Macrovision crap.
Fraunhofer is a huge research institute with massive economic and political power, but more importantly their licencing of MP3 is handled by Thomson/RCA which is huge in the USA. MS could not rip Thomson off and get away with it.
It's not as if the net hasn't tried to help this situation. The classic Dysfunctional Family Circus would take a normal, horribly unfunny Family Circus image, delete the original banal caption and invite visitors to add their own caption. The best of these, chosen by editors (people who had submitted many funny captions) would be added. This went on for 500 cartoons before Bil Keane's lawyers shut it down.
That would be great if you could, thanks.
Does anyone have a utility to change these bits on MP3s? I found one, but it was unreliable and screwed up some of the files, causing them to play at double speed. Are there any "MP3 Repair Kits" out there?
70mm is a perfectly fine thing, except that they haven't actually shot a film in it, other than the VistaVision effects shots, in decades. 70mm prints are optical blow-ups from 35mm.
Yes, Mr. Coward, I seek out 70mm prints. The local Imax (Chicago's Navy Pier) will soon be showing a 70mm roadshow print of "2001", and yeah, I'll be right there the first night.
Bite me. I'm 40 years old and have been observing technology for years. I've see 70mm roadshow prints in their original release.
The only space available was right down at front, which was fine by me as I specifically was there to see how well the image held up very close to the screen. And it did. The original film grain of the 35mm negative was visible. How the hell was I supposed to judge it? From the SMPTE approved distance? You were the clod who suggested that the pixels were "a foot across". I suspect that you have never actually see this technology and are just arguing.
You weren't. No theater, other than special test showings at Kodak's test theaters and maybe at the Museum of the Moving Image, uses wet-gate projection. That is exclusively for telecine - for instance the telecine done while making an HDTV transfer.
The sad fact is that theater chains do not employ trained film professionals. They employ 16 year olds. And those 16 year olds are less likely to screw up putting in a pair of DVDs than to properly assemble a bunch of reels in the right order without making a hash of it. I can't imagine how much worse the situation would be if they were to try to handle a wet-gate as well.
The guy who never actually built anything? Yeah, I'm composing this on a giant, clattering difference engine, brass wheels spinning...
Babbage's "basic design" wasn't built until a few years ago.
The day of chemical photography has passed. I do not mourn it.
Forget the "Walkman", here we have the "Strawman".
I sign my name, which puts me at least half a hill ahead of you.
No need. The fast is that you've seen films that have been transferred to HDTV and re-output to film for effects work and haven't even noticed it. "Pleasantville" was done in that way. Actual filmmakers do not object to the HDTV standard. Besides, most of them are actually using 1080p/24 (a mistake, in my opinion 24 fps should go they way of the dinosaur) instead of 1080i/30.
By playing 25mm film at 48fps, it doubles the number of film cans shipped to theaters, doubles the number of splices needed to be performed, doubles the number of opportunities for things to go wrong. Yes, it reduces the film grain and the visibility of scratches, but only by making all the other hassles and headaches of film projection worse. Besides, if this was the solution, why didn't theater owners start demanding the 60-fps projection of Doug Trumball's ShowScan system from years ago? (Yes, I've seen ShowScan, at the theater at Niagra Falls). Because ShowScan would have tripled the amount of film that would have to be handled.
BTW, Maxivision.com is an eye care specialist. Perhaps you should have a talk with them.
Yes, I've seen virtually every digital projector on the market, from the first time TI debuted DLP at CES and NAB to the most recent versions. No way in hell does it look like a pixel is "a foot across". I've seen JVC/Hughes' 12000 projector at a special showing at NAB and was closer to the screen than anyone else, and while I could spot the 3 burned on red pixels, the 1 burned on green pixel and the 2 burned off blue pixels (this was a prototype), I was not able to see any distinction between the pixels in the course of the reguler film. This was an HD showing of "Shakespere In Love" on a 40' wide screen, and I was less than 15' from the actual screen. I could see details on the lace being worn by Gweneth Paltrow. I attended the HD Film Festival, I do IT work for the Chicago International Film Festival and I dearly love movies. And I wait anxiously for the demise of every single 35mm film projector, with their weave and flicker, scratches, dust, breaks and all the rest of the crap that goes along with a 100 year old technology.
And a good idea too. Ebert is a total clod about technology, opposing digital projection trying to push the idea of a larger, even more problematic film format. Talk about unclear on the concept.
By the way, never believe him if he says a film has a confusing plot. I've seen him at showings here in Chicago, and he usually waits until the film has started to visit the snack bar, so he can miss important plot points.
Just remember what Kyle's Mom, Sheila Broflovski said:
You sound like one of those bozos who only goes to see one film a year. The truth is far more complex than you imagine. The "Hollywood" you blithely tar produces many films, some repulsive, some uplifting. Sadly, uplifting films that enoble the human spirit, films that ask important questions, films that frighten without appealing to visceral...do shit at the box office. Did you go see "You Can Count On Me", "The Iron Giant", "In The Company of Men"?
Clod. Read some history, ok? These are actually some of the least violent times in human history. We don't currently have public executions. That was considered a family outing a couple of hundred years ago. Perhaps you would prefer the soft of family values embodied by the folks in Salem MA and burn people alive?
Crawl back under your bridge, Troll.
Read Nadine Strossen's "Defending Pornography".
It's not Hollywood's values. Hollywood offers a wide range of film embodying every sort of moral viewpoint. Look at the movie listings. There are all sorts of films playing, and only ONE features canibalism.
Let's see:
From that list from IMDB, only two are "horror" films, and only one features cannibalism (to my knowledge. Who told you that you had to see "Hanibal" anyway? See "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" instead. Or "Traffic". Or "Cast Away". Or "O Brother, Where Art Thou?". Or just piss off.