by providing better quality. The question is how you can justify it technically, but how you can justify it to the board/shareholders/etc. that you want to release a separate higher-quality version that the majority of people won't be buying.
However, and this was my main point, it'd help if they at least didn't price it -higher- than the version with extras - it should be lower, with people paying more for extras at the cost of some image quality.
the marginal increased cost was for the production of a 2nd disc with the extras / pressing a double-sided disc. ( I have exactly 5 double-sided DVDs.. I suspect double-sided blu-rays are equally or even more rare )
I do wish that more DVDs, and now Blu-Rays, were made in this way. The discs themselves are ridiculously cheap, the premium paid for a 2-disc DVD box and getting it packaged etc. is negligible (except when you add up all the millions of discs, but even then it's a small part of the total cost and doesn't affect one of the larger costs: transport and storage).. 1 disc with the feature and a limited selection of languages and the like (german dubs... *sigh*) and 1 disc with any extras, please.
Unfortunately they did charge substantially more for them (at least in NL), so when the average consumer compares the two and sees one with just the movie for, say, $19.99 and another with the movie -and- a bunch of extras for $14,99... well, what did they expect?
Did you just not read the post you replied to, or what?
This says nothing about abandoning flash, just only allowing H.264 video with a video tag.
You can still use Flash as long as there will be a Flash plugin for IE9. There's no reason to think there won't be - so go ahead, just use the object tag as you have been.
The only scale this might tip is the Theora vs h.264 thing as MS announced that as far as the video tag goes, they will only accept h.264 datastreams . Unless this in itself can be extended using plugins, this means a great majority of people who browse the web will be limited to viewing those h.264 datastreams. The significance (closes vs open, etc.) is probably lost on those people, though... so why would Microsoft care to support a second non-industry-backed datastream if there's no push for them to do so.
Coming from the Terminator (Score:3, Interesting) We surely wouldn't want to expose the children to any media influences that glorify violence and fighting, now would we?
I see what you did there - but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
If a hardcore porn director would have said that he didn't want to expose children to hardcore porn, would that be in some way hypocritical, too?
Just because the guy was in a movie with a lot of violence doesn't mean that he can't believe young children shouldn't be seeing it.
To top it off.. here's the movie ratings for the Terminator series, valid for the U.S.: Terminator 1: R Terminator 2: R (certificate #31159) Terminator 3: R (certificate #39974) Terminator 4: PG-13 (certificate #45308) Terminator 4 - Director's Cut: R (certificate #45600)
R: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian PG-13: Parents are strongly cautioned to give special guidance for attendance of children under 13 - Some material may be inappropriate for young children
So as far as the ratings are concerned, young children shouldn't be seeing any of the Terminator movies to begin with, regardless of what Arnold Schwarzenegger believes.
Its designers note that it could fly straight up the middle of the Persian Gulf before making a sharp turn toward a target Geeze.. if the 'designers' are going to be that un-subtle, they should just say it already: Iran/Afghanistan.
(unless they honestly want to suggest that the sharp turn being made is to the left, toward UAE/Qatar/Saudi Arabia)
Here's the thing.. it's not Windows' fault that some random program deletes svchost.exe , just as it isn't Windows' fault that any app or user can delete ntldr (e.g. a badly designed uninstaller).
But it -is- a Windows problem because without those, it won't start up. So why is Windows even allowing these files to be deleted? I can't delete by hiberfil.sys even though all it is, is pre-allocated space for the hibernation functionality. If I deleted it, nothing would be lost, and upon hibernation it could re-allocate the required space or tell the user the drive is too full and they're SOL. But no - I simply can't delete it. But I -can- delete vital system files.
So, no.. it's not Windows' fault that McAfee's virus scanner deleted the file. It -is- Windows' problem that they -can- in the first place.
I realize that sometimes there may be a need for a 3rd party application to modify a system file - however rare - but then provide this through a proper mechanism that backs up the original and deletes/replaces on reboot only, with the option to deny the change on boot-up. ( System Restore points only go so far as you'll need the Windows CD/DVD in order to get to the restore utility if you can't boot into Windows anymore. It's also an overly complex solution to the simple problem of renaming files on bootup. )
their only downside is the upfront cost and often inflexibility
Indeed.. it's why one Dutch entrepreneur is still shipping tons and tons of onions off to Poland to be graded, cut, peeled, and cut further (for rings, dices, etc.) by hand by 'low wage' workers, and then sent back to NL, rather than investing in something like...
Ask Japan what happens when you go suicidal on the US.
You get a few nukes dropped on you, scores of people die, then you move on with your life and build one of the most powerful and technologically advanced (albeit still suicidal) societies on Earth?
The site is supposed to list Government requests - which would imply that it was a 'vs The Govt' type thing.
But if you count -any- court order, even those resulting from cases brought before the court by non-government entities, as being a government-issued order (as the courts are part of the government).. then sure. That would certainly skew the statistics.
Some of the "we complied with this 'request'" bits - for data removal, they don't show stats on information requests at this time - do show "(court order)", though.
Which of course has me curious.. which Google Video item was removed by court order from the U.S. government?
Take this 3D Yugoslav toy that I mentioned; I can't quickly find it via google, but it was essentially a cardboard disk with dozen or so pairs of small cliches (photos of various landmarks), which you put into small handheld viewer. From the 70's.
You can't really compare it to a 3D display, though. Only one viewer at a time, and it's a device you have to store away / get out all the time. You also can't look at the images 'as is' (well you can if you hold them up to a light and look real closely).
Think e.g. of the lenticular prints. I can store those in any photo album the same way I do regular 2D photos. The only reason I don't print many of those is because it is such a small audience (myself, family, friends) as opposed to any viewer with an internet connection.
That said - I absolutely don't contend that people are satisfied with 'boring' 2D photos - and movies. On the up side - any 3D photo can easily be a 2D photo (just take left or right.. done.) going the other way yields Clash-of-the-Titans muck;)
I think it's rather akin to HD video cameras. There's plenty of HD video cameras, from 720i to 1080p. There's also certainly people purchasing these and enjoying the HD quality. But for most people, the upload to YouTube in 360p with artifacts up the wazoo is good enough. But that doesn't mean there isn't an HD market for consumers.. same thing applies to 3D.. though there is that chicken-and-egg thing:)
Put differently... 3D is a niche - undoubtedly - but I don't think it will be a short-lived 'fad' as it has been in previous pushes. Future events may prove me wrong - and I wouldn't have any problems with that:)
In your model, the only person actually infringing upon anything would be the person who does have a license (presumably by buying the album) but then creates unauthorized copies. The people downloading wouldn't be doing anything in breach of a license, not stealing, and not copyright infringement.
That's neither the way the RIAA looks at it, nor the way the aforementioned 'we' look at it.
That -is- actually the way it is in NL, though (but doesn't apply to programs/books/etc. so in this case a downloader would still be in violation of law)
To see better what it is...where's the huge uptake of 3D photographs? As a stereophotography amateur (using a custom dual-camera rig so I can create exaggerated depth perception - much like binoculars), I would have to say it's very much a chicken-and-egg problem.
I can shoot a hundred stereo photos today and have them all be.. well I wouldn't say awesome as I don't take notice of composition, lighting, etc. much..fairly good. But in the end, how am I going to display them to people? Right now I use a cross-eye side-by-side presentation. That works for most people, but not all. Some of them I get printed at a lenticular 3D lab. That works OK for a lot of people, but only those that hold the print.
Now if 3D TVs and monitors are going to be more ubiquitous, I could run a little program that would send the correct signals to the 3D display to have the photos displayed properly on those. HTML 5.something or HTML 6 might even add support for 3D displays.
But right now those displays aren't ubiquitous.. so why would anybody who isn't already mildly enthusiastic about the prospects be convinced to buy a 3D P&S like the Fujifilm FinePix Real 3D W1?
The real issue is not stereoscopic picture but accomodation of the eye.
Although you are correct when it comes to physical (and in some aspects, psychological) aspects of glasses, I'd like to point out that GP suggested designer glasses to deal with a -very real issue- in adoption of 3D that requires glasses... "goofy glasses", "ridiculous glasses", "Can you imagine sitting in your living room with friends all wearing those stupid glasses?", etc.
There will always be people who have issues with things like stereoscopic 3D, just as some people can't handle rapid bright flashes and some people are color blind. But for those who have no physical nor true psychological issues where the only barrier is the "goofy glasses", some nice design glasses could go a long way. ( Though the vast majority of people who complain about the glasses complain about glasses no matter how good they'd look. Circular polarized contacts for that lot, I say;) )
Correct. Nothing in the HDMI 1.4(a) specification precludes the ability to send 3D content from an HDMI 1.3 device. There is no form-factor or cabling change related to 3D in the HDMI 1.4(a) specification. The only cabling change is for Ethernet-over-HDMI, which is not a requirement for 3D.
The only requirements are: 1. the HDMI device must be able to send the correct signal. This is typically a firmware thing but it depends on the device whether it can handle e.g. framepacking/etc. Shouldn't be a problem for the PS3. 2. the HDMI cable must be able to (reliably) carry that signal. Not a problem there either as there's no relevant cabling change. 3. the receiving device must be able to decode that signal. This is separate from the transmitting device altogether.
Similar information is in the HDMI spec.
However... that doesn't mean that SONY wouldn't say "too bad, so sad" and reserve the feature for the PS4. Similarly, there isn't really anything technically (agreements aren't 'technical') stopping a receiving device (TV, motnitor) from checking for the Ethernet lines in the cabling and if it hasn't been detected, disable all HDMI 1.4(a) features.. including 3D.
Since Google could quite successfully argue in court that their closed source code has lost value it's theft.
Slow down there, cowboy:)
They would have to argue successfully that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to him (does it really use 'him'? how quaint)
I would argue that most of the world could have the source code and there's no real economic value loss to Google unless their shares dropped for a few seconds or somesuch since this became public knowledge. I can take slashcode, for example, but I'm not going to succeed in removing 'the major portion of slashcode's economic value or benefit' as it'd take a miracle, not the source code, to make my site popular enough that advertisers and the like would pay substantially less to Slashdot. Similarly... Google has the networks, the contracts, the installed userbase, etc. the code, in part, enables the the economic value.. but it isn't the emodiment thereof. They could replace it with any other ol' code that'd be a drop-in replacement (as apparently they're doing, in part) and the economic value wouldn't be altered (unless they make it inferior).
The "we" would be the majority of those who bother to comment on such stories.
There's very few who argue the opposite, such as yourself.
My own take on it can be gleaned from my comment history, but my original comment was mainly aimed at those who shout the loudest that 'copyright infringement isn't theft!' in the usual story comments threads:)
If Israel's WiFi standard is like Europe's, this begs several questions:
No it doesn't.. and not just because you meant to say 'prompts several questions'.
1) Isn't it likely that Apple has already explored this ground? If not prior to the iPad's rollout, then after introducing the same technology in the iPhone when they introduced it over a year ago throughout europe and Israel?
Yes. Your point is? Apple haven't launched the iPad in Israel, or Europe for that matter.
2) Why haven't european regulators also rejected the iPad?
Your question has a fallacy to begin with. Israeli regulators haven't rejected the iPad per se. They reject any tech that can broadcasts at particular frequencies and/or strengths. See the Wikipedia topic on WiFi channels ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels ) and pay special attention to the 'n' standard and how -many- channels are blocked in Israel specifically.
Since they apparently have not, they must have tested the iPad (or grandfathered it as comparable iPhone tech) and accepted it.
That's a wrong assumption. They needn't test the device simply because it's not actually brought onto the market by any non-grey import entity. By that I also include travelers.
That said.. though I can't speak for -all- countries, at least in NL they're not -too- strict on what you bring with you/etc. They're far more likely to slap an import fine on you (and possibly still be cheaper off than getting it retail here once available) than that they would say "Channel X isn't allowed in the EU - we are confiscating this device."
The same applies to the U.S. Although my notebook will happily use 'b' channel 13, it's not going to get confiscated at the U.S. border because of this. Although, under law, if they were to find me actually using it they -could- cite me for it.
3) Since the europeans tested and accepted the iPad, why haven't the Israelis accepted the european test results since they're supposedly equivalent?
'The europeans' didn't - even if they did, there's still the differences pointed out in that wiki page. They're not nearly as equivalent as one might think.
Sounds like the Israelis are waving a red herring. Either they're protecting an in-country product or license, or they're punishing Apple for something. Either way, this kind of pissy petulence makes them sound like a snotty child.
Or they're just enforcing the laws of their country as they have always done. Once Apple makes an iPad for the European market, I'm sure they'll just tweak the firmware to block the channels that can be used and the power with which it transmits. Problem solved. They're not punishing Apple in any way - just impatient users.. that's a risk you take with grey (or sometimes even black) market import.
Unfortunately it seems your page is behind some manner of login.
Just wanted to say - awesome! Hopefully it'll be a solid foundation.. best would be see the various disparate video editing tools converge or at least play together more to make a competitive product/suite.
I'm a big supporter of The GIMP myself - I have Photoshop on another machine and I continually feel like I'm playing with a piece of software that a photographer from the 30's designed.. even despite all the new nifty tools in CS5. E.g. printing an image at a non-uniform scale. No can do. You must go through the resize image dialog. Upon which you must first enable the 'calculate new pixels' option because otherwise, of course, it's not actually resizing the image.. it's just changing its DPI. Oi. Effin. Vey.
But I do realize it's not even remotely on a level of competing with Photoshop - even in basic areas such as a proper transform tool. But progress is made and I do hope to see similar progress on the video editing end.
If society forms opinions of individuals based on pseudonymous commentary by people named "Poopybear4556" then society has a serious problem.
As opposed to hanging at every word of one 'Pamela Jones'?
The factor isn't whether somebody's 'screen name' (nickname, handle, whatever) looks ridiculous or not, but whether what they are saying is, in fact, taken seriously. That's why it's perfectly okay to call a teacher an asshole but claiming that you believe you saw him doing something less-than-honorable with a 16-year old student is something else entirely. The content of the message doesn't change when it's "lulzmaster101" vs "John Marks, Sr.".
Even if you believe people shouldn't be that stupid, and that the courts certainly shouldn't agree, the 'court of public opinion' is one entirely different. Just look at review sites where, by and large anonymous, reviews actually -can- affect business (for better or worse).
Slashdot Mirror
by providing better quality. The question is how you can justify it technically, but how you can justify it to the board/shareholders/etc. that you want to release a separate higher-quality version that the majority of people won't be buying.
However, and this was my main point, it'd help if they at least didn't price it -higher- than the version with extras - it should be lower, with people paying more for extras at the cost of some image quality.
the marginal increased cost was for the production of a 2nd disc with the extras / pressing a double-sided disc.
( I have exactly 5 double-sided DVDs.. I suspect double-sided blu-rays are equally or even more rare )
oblig. wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superbit
I do wish that more DVDs, and now Blu-Rays, were made in this way. The discs themselves are ridiculously cheap, the premium paid for a 2-disc DVD box and getting it packaged etc. is negligible (except when you add up all the millions of discs, but even then it's a small part of the total cost and doesn't affect one of the larger costs: transport and storage).. 1 disc with the feature and a limited selection of languages and the like (german dubs... *sigh*) and 1 disc with any extras, please.
Unfortunately they did charge substantially more for them (at least in NL), so when the average consumer compares the two and sees one with just the movie for, say, $19.99 and another with the movie -and- a bunch of extras for $14,99... well, what did they expect?
Did you just not read the post you replied to, or what?
You can still use Flash as long as there will be a Flash plugin for IE9. There's no reason to think there won't be - so go ahead, just use the object tag as you have been.
The only scale this might tip is the Theora vs h.264 thing as MS announced that as far as the video tag goes, they will only accept h.264 datastreams . Unless this in itself can be extended using plugins, this means a great majority of people who browse the web will be limited to viewing those h.264 datastreams. The significance (closes vs open, etc.) is probably lost on those people, though... so why would Microsoft care to support a second non-industry-backed datastream if there's no push for them to do so.
I see what you did there - but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.
If a hardcore porn director would have said that he didn't want to expose children to hardcore porn, would that be in some way hypocritical, too?
Just because the guy was in a movie with a lot of violence doesn't mean that he can't believe young children shouldn't be seeing it.
To top it off.. here's the movie ratings for the Terminator series, valid for the U.S.:
Terminator 1: R
Terminator 2: R (certificate #31159)
Terminator 3: R (certificate #39974)
Terminator 4: PG-13 (certificate #45308)
Terminator 4 - Director's Cut: R (certificate #45600)
R: Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian
PG-13: Parents are strongly cautioned to give special guidance for attendance of children under 13 - Some material may be inappropriate for young children
So as far as the ratings are concerned, young children shouldn't be seeing any of the Terminator movies to begin with, regardless of what Arnold Schwarzenegger believes.
( Title after the VirtualDUB developer's excellent post entitled "Just because it is not your fault does not mean it is not your problem"; http://www.virtualdub.org/blog/pivot/entry.php?id=245 )
Here's the thing.. it's not Windows' fault that some random program deletes svchost.exe , just as it isn't Windows' fault that any app or user can delete ntldr (e.g. a badly designed uninstaller).
But it -is- a Windows problem because without those, it won't start up. So why is Windows even allowing these files to be deleted?
I can't delete by hiberfil.sys even though all it is, is pre-allocated space for the hibernation functionality. If I deleted it, nothing would be lost, and upon hibernation it could re-allocate the required space or tell the user the drive is too full and they're SOL. But no - I simply can't delete it. But I -can- delete vital system files.
So, no.. it's not Windows' fault that McAfee's virus scanner deleted the file. It -is- Windows' problem that they -can- in the first place.
I realize that sometimes there may be a need for a 3rd party application to modify a system file - however rare - but then provide this through a proper mechanism that backs up the original and deletes/replaces on reboot only, with the option to deny the change on boot-up. ( System Restore points only go so far as you'll need the Windows CD/DVD in order to get to the restore utility if you can't boot into Windows anymore. It's also an overly complex solution to the simple problem of renaming files on bootup. )
Indeed.. it's why one Dutch entrepreneur is still shipping tons and tons of onions off to Poland to be graded, cut, peeled, and cut further (for rings, dices, etc.) by hand by 'low wage' workers, and then sent back to NL, rather than investing in something like...
http://www.onionpeeler.com/item.asp?id=3276&/NAKAYA/Automatic_Onion_Skin_Peeler_%5BNon_Abrasive%5D/ ...which only does the peeling part for regularly-shaped onions (at least it takes a fair range of sizes, better than what I've seen ~4 years ago). Add another machine + maintenance + operator for the cutting. Another for the ringing/dicing. Etc.
Thus refers to -actually- simple tasks. Not just the tasks that -seem- like they should be pretty simple.. turns out most things rarely are.
You get a few nukes dropped on you, scores of people die, then you move on with your life and build one of the most powerful and technologically advanced (albeit still suicidal) societies on Earth?
Sounds almost like a plan.
I suppose that could be the case...
The site is supposed to list Government requests - which would imply that it was a 'vs The Govt' type thing.
But if you count -any- court order, even those resulting from cases brought before the court by non-government entities, as being a government-issued order (as the courts are part of the government).. then sure. That would certainly skew the statistics.
Some of the "we complied with this 'request'" bits - for data removal, they don't show stats on information requests at this time - do show "(court order)", though.
Which of course has me curious.. which Google Video item was removed by court order from the U.S. government?
Given the error, queueing the grammar nazis might not be such a bad idea.
Might have been a View-Master like device?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/View-Master
You can't really compare it to a 3D display, though. Only one viewer at a time, and it's a device you have to store away / get out all the time. You also can't look at the images 'as is' (well you can if you hold them up to a light and look real closely).
Think e.g. of the lenticular prints. I can store those in any photo album the same way I do regular 2D photos. The only reason I don't print many of those is because it is such a small audience (myself, family, friends) as opposed to any viewer with an internet connection.
That said - I absolutely don't contend that people are satisfied with 'boring' 2D photos - and movies. On the up side - any 3D photo can easily be a 2D photo (just take left or right.. done.) going the other way yields Clash-of-the-Titans muck ;)
I think it's rather akin to HD video cameras. There's plenty of HD video cameras, from 720i to 1080p. There's also certainly people purchasing these and enjoying the HD quality. But for most people, the upload to YouTube in 360p with artifacts up the wazoo is good enough. But that doesn't mean there isn't an HD market for consumers.. same thing applies to 3D.. though there is that chicken-and-egg thing :)
Put differently... 3D is a niche - undoubtedly - but I don't think it will be a short-lived 'fad' as it has been in previous pushes. Future events may prove me wrong - and I wouldn't have any problems with that :)
Tell that to the RIAA / slashbots ;)
In your model, the only person actually infringing upon anything would be the person who does have a license (presumably by buying the album) but then creates unauthorized copies. The people downloading wouldn't be doing anything in breach of a license, not stealing, and not copyright infringement.
That's neither the way the RIAA looks at it, nor the way the aforementioned 'we' look at it.
That -is- actually the way it is in NL, though (but doesn't apply to programs/books/etc. so in this case a downloader would still be in violation of law)
Although you are correct when it comes to physical (and in some aspects, psychological) aspects of glasses, I'd like to point out that GP suggested designer glasses to deal with a -very real issue- in adoption of 3D that requires glasses... "goofy glasses", "ridiculous glasses", "Can you imagine sitting in your living room with friends all wearing those stupid glasses?", etc.
There will always be people who have issues with things like stereoscopic 3D, just as some people can't handle rapid bright flashes and some people are color blind. But for those who have no physical nor true psychological issues where the only barrier is the "goofy glasses", some nice design glasses could go a long way. ;) )
( Though the vast majority of people who complain about the glasses complain about glasses no matter how good they'd look. Circular polarized contacts for that lot, I say
Correct. Nothing in the HDMI 1.4(a) specification precludes the ability to send 3D content from an HDMI 1.3 device. There is no form-factor or cabling change related to 3D in the HDMI 1.4(a) specification. The only cabling change is for Ethernet-over-HDMI, which is not a requirement for 3D.
The only requirements are:
1. the HDMI device must be able to send the correct signal. This is typically a firmware thing but it depends on the device whether it can handle e.g. framepacking/etc. Shouldn't be a problem for the PS3.
2. the HDMI cable must be able to (reliably) carry that signal. Not a problem there either as there's no relevant cabling change.
3. the receiving device must be able to decode that signal. This is separate from the transmitting device altogether.
Similar information is in the HDMI spec.
However... that doesn't mean that SONY wouldn't say "too bad, so sad" and reserve the feature for the PS4. Similarly, there isn't really anything technically (agreements aren't 'technical') stopping a receiving device (TV, motnitor) from checking for the Ethernet lines in the cabling and if it hasn't been detected, disable all HDMI 1.4(a) features.. including 3D.
Slow down there, cowboy :)
They would have to argue successfully that the major portion of its economic value or benefit is lost to him (does it really use 'him'? how quaint)
I would argue that most of the world could have the source code and there's no real economic value loss to Google unless their shares dropped for a few seconds or somesuch since this became public knowledge. I can take slashcode, for example, but I'm not going to succeed in removing 'the major portion of slashcode's economic value or benefit' as it'd take a miracle, not the source code, to make my site popular enough that advertisers and the like would pay substantially less to Slashdot.
Similarly... Google has the networks, the contracts, the installed userbase, etc. the code, in part, enables the the economic value.. but it isn't the emodiment thereof. They could replace it with any other ol' code that'd be a drop-in replacement (as apparently they're doing, in part) and the economic value wouldn't be altered (unless they make it inferior).
The "we" would be the majority of those who bother to comment on such stories.
There's very few who argue the opposite, such as yourself.
My own take on it can be gleaned from my comment history, but my original comment was mainly aimed at those who shout the loudest that 'copyright infringement isn't theft!' in the usual story comments threads :)
My point exactly - no matter how much it's modded "Off-topic" currently :D /karma
Stolen?
What.. they are no longer in possession of the source code?
No it doesn't.. and not just because you meant to say 'prompts several questions'.
Yes. Your point is? Apple haven't launched the iPad in Israel, or Europe for that matter.
Your question has a fallacy to begin with. Israeli regulators haven't rejected the iPad per se. They reject any tech that can broadcasts at particular frequencies and/or strengths. See the Wikipedia topic on WiFi channels ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_WLAN_channels ) and pay special attention to the 'n' standard and how -many- channels are blocked in Israel specifically.
That's a wrong assumption. They needn't test the device simply because it's not actually brought onto the market by any non-grey import entity. By that I also include travelers.
That said.. though I can't speak for -all- countries, at least in NL they're not -too- strict on what you bring with you/etc. They're far more likely to slap an import fine on you (and possibly still be cheaper off than getting it retail here once available) than that they would say "Channel X isn't allowed in the EU - we are confiscating this device."
The same applies to the U.S. Although my notebook will happily use 'b' channel 13, it's not going to get confiscated at the U.S. border because of this. Although, under law, if they were to find me actually using it they -could- cite me for it.
'The europeans' didn't - even if they did, there's still the differences pointed out in that wiki page. They're not nearly as equivalent as one might think.
Or they're just enforcing the laws of their country as they have always done. Once Apple makes an iPad for the European market, I'm sure they'll just tweak the firmware to block the channels that can be used and the power with which it transmits. Problem solved. They're not punishing Apple in any way - just impatient users.. that's a risk you take with grey (or sometimes even black) market import.
Unfortunately it seems your page is behind some manner of login.
Just wanted to say - awesome! Hopefully it'll be a solid foundation.. best would be see the various disparate video editing tools converge or at least play together more to make a competitive product/suite.
I'm a big supporter of The GIMP myself - I have Photoshop on another machine and I continually feel like I'm playing with a piece of software that a photographer from the 30's designed.. even despite all the new nifty tools in CS5. E.g. printing an image at a non-uniform scale. No can do. You must go through the resize image dialog. Upon which you must first enable the 'calculate new pixels' option because otherwise, of course, it's not actually resizing the image.. it's just changing its DPI. Oi. Effin. Vey.
But I do realize it's not even remotely on a level of competing with Photoshop - even in basic areas such as a proper transform tool. But progress is made and I do hope to see similar progress on the video editing end.
As opposed to hanging at every word of one 'Pamela Jones'?
The factor isn't whether somebody's 'screen name' (nickname, handle, whatever) looks ridiculous or not, but whether what they are saying is, in fact, taken seriously. That's why it's perfectly okay to call a teacher an asshole but claiming that you believe you saw him doing something less-than-honorable with a 16-year old student is something else entirely. The content of the message doesn't change when it's "lulzmaster101" vs "John Marks, Sr.".
Even if you believe people shouldn't be that stupid, and that the courts certainly shouldn't agree, the 'court of public opinion' is one entirely different. Just look at review sites where, by and large anonymous, reviews actually -can- affect business (for better or worse).
fixed that for you... a subtle, but important, distinction.