I hate Norton as much as the next guy, but for the sake of some good uses of the word Genesis, please look at the Panavision Genesis camera - the world's BEST digital cinema camera bar none:
http://www.panavision.com.au/News/Genesis.htmhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_HD_camera
With a little luck (and a good amount of funding!!!) I will be using this camera to film my first feature film later this year...
I find it interesting how the US Army (and their political wing, the GOP) refer to soldiers of the opposing forces as "terrorists" these days (specifically Iraq at the moment), even though they are quite clearly in their own country, defending it from an invading army intent on stealing their resources and setting up a permanent outpost presence in their back yard.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and paint a scenario for you:
Country X invades the US, ostensibly to "spread freedom and topple the rogue regime which created a police state, subjugated its own citizens under the dictator Bush and exported terror to the world". You and your friends, naturally pissed off that another country has unilaterally and quite obviously invaded you (regardless of the outside world's media spin on the reality of the situation on the ground), fight back against them. You don't officially belong to the US Army (routed early in the piece because they were a spent force after trying to invade too many countries at once), but you and your friends nonetheless form a citizens' militia and hit back however you can, improvising explosives and using all your skills and ingenuity to try to vanquish a militarily superior foe. You also begin killing those Americans who decided to cast their lot with the invaders and are assisting them to "restore law and order", since they are even lower on the scale of human refuse than the invaders - they are collaborators and traitors to their own people.
So, under that scenario, do you call yourself a "terrorist", a "freedom fighter", or are you part of an unofficial "citizens' army/militia/resistance"?
If you still consider the Iraqi resistance to be "terrorists" after thinking truthfully about the above scenario, but wouldn't call yourself that, then you are the worst type of hypocrite I know.
I sincerely hope though that after considering my scenario honestly, you will come to the conclusion that you need to redefine a terrorist a little more specifically, and then apply that evenly to players on all sides, not just those on the opposition.
I'm curious - why is it that you consider a sexual attraction to children an illness that has to be cured?
Do you consider homosexuality or lesbianism an illness that has to be cured? If yes, why. If no, why not, and why do you distinguish the various sexual attractions from one another on a sliding scale of "normal" to "ill"?
What about ephebophiles (those who are sexually attracted to teens who have begun to develop sexually but aren't attracted to proper children who haven't hit puberty yet)? This group in particular would seem to encompass almost all males if you judge it solely by the amount of "teen" porn on the net (though 99% of that porn is in actuality showing 18-25 year olds who look younger).
As previous posters have said, people cannot help their natural sexual attractions and forcing them to change is in my opinion far more harmful due to the repressive nature of the "treatments".
I ask all this because I classify myself in the ephebophile category and certainly don't think I am in any way "ill" as you put it. Over time I have come to know what I find most attractive in girls, and the traits I covet most (small breasts, hips, youthful face, wide eyes and mouth, small nose etc etc) are those that teenage girls exhibit, hence my realisation that I am in fact an ephebophile. I married a girl who had these features even though obviously she is older than 18, and for me personally that was enough from a sexual attraction perspective.
It also means that because I am comfortable with my own sexual persuasions, I also have a greater understanding for those who are homosexuals or lesbians, or any other type of pideon-hole you care to put someone in.
Since you are a girl according to your sig, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you like guys? Presuming you do (but modify the question to suit if not), ask yourself honestly, WHY do you like guys? When you can answer that honestly (good luck, I can't answer WHY I like teenage girls, I just do), you will hopefully see that others can no more help their sexual persuasion than you can help yours.
It's how you deal with that that shows your level of tolerance for those who are different from yourself.
It might also be instructive for you to do some research into the Japanese interest in Lolicon manga and why it is quite widespread and accepted there. Societal structures that establish what is "right" and what is "perverted" differ widely around the globe, so if that is the case, why is it that Western "values" are somehow right and others are wrong?
I think in the end, all humans have a sexual attraction, and that all of them are in fact a normal part of being human. That we marginalise some because of societal/religious notions speaks volumes of our evolution and just how far we have yet to go before we understand and accept all of our diversities instead of killing and otherwise tormenting each other over them.
I recently directed a short scifi film called "Eve" and put together the DVD myself.
As such, I made a conscious decision NOT to put any form of DRM on it. No PUOs, no CSS, no region codes. As a movie watcher I hate them, so why on earth would I subject someone else to it? I even placed a page on the DVD stating that, so people who watch it are made that little bit more aware that I am looking out for the viewer's interests in doing so. I've also expressly allowed people to make copies as long as it is for personal use only. If you want to distribute it commercially you'll need to licence it properly. That seems fair to me.
I plan on doing this for every film I make, because I think more and more that people will respond positively to those filmmakers who actually respect their audience and not try to screw them over every chance they get.
If you are interested in getting your own autographed copy of "Eve" then you can buy it from my website (see sig). That's another way to add value to something that can be freely copied by the way - make it personal and unique to the buyer. And why not? I am grateful for every copy I can sell as I'm just starting out and this seems like a great way to say thankyou.
Although the film is only fifteen minutes in length (including credits), the DVD contains about an hour and a half worth of special features, another way to add value.
If you are interested in more info please take a look at my website!
Actually I plan to do something similar with my film once it's completed.
I won't be waiving copyright, but I will be releasing it online for free as a full featured DVD (single layer). Torrents are the only way I could ever do this as there's no way I could pay for that sort of bandwidth myself.
How will I make any money from my art? Well that part is up to everyone who downloads it. If you like the film and want to contribute something back so I can make more films, I will be selling signed copies of the DVD via my website. That way you get something personal and I get to make more films. It's win win, but only if people are willing to pay for entertainment in a fair way.
Yes in all regions EXCEPT Region 4, that is Australia and New Zealand.
Which sucks, because I for one didn't realise until I'd bought my copy, having read overseas reviews (including Region 2 which I assumed would be simply altered for region code and shipped locally) which DID have both cuts of the film on DVD.
The mask removal scene was ALSO edited to add in Hayden Christiansen. Compare the old and new side by side and you'd see that straight away. No doubt someone will link to some screenshots soon enough to prove my point.
No because the image I'm working with is already at DVD resolution (720x576 PAL anamorphic).
It's not meant for use once the film is released publically, it's an internal security measure to prevent an insider from releasing it before it is finished. I hate DRM and would not release a proper version with any in the first place.
I'm not talking about the resolution itself, because I realise that DVDs etc are interpolated anyway at those resolutions regardless of ratio. It's just that 1920x1080 means NO interpolation is necessary for HD material, thus giving the best possible image.
The problem addresses exactly what you are saying, that you don't want dead space (black bars) top or bottom of your image. My film is made at the 16:9 ratio for just this reason, so people with widescreen displays don't get any bars on their TVs. At 16:10 ratio, you either fill the screen and vertically stretchthe image away from it's real aspect, or you have small black bars top and bottom. It is this that I would like to see disappear.
I don't have a widescreen laptop yet, but when I do get one, I'd like to see it with a proper 16:9 display at HD resolution, i.e. 1920x1080, NOT the bastardised 16:10 ratio of 1920x1200.
Who were the idiots that decided that LCD panels should forego proper TV scale resolutions (4:3 and 16:9) and use the non-standard 5:4 and 16:10 ratios???
Is Microsoft responsible? Did they ask to have TV resolution plus taskbar addon resolution? I mean seriously - who watches a DVD at full screen width and keeps the taskbar visible? Anyone? Didn't think so, so why make the panels that way?/rant
I have just directed my first short film and it is now in post production. I plan to release it online next year for free, once it has completed the festival circuit.
However, that said, the concern I have is early, unfinished copies of the film getting out, or rushes, or other intermediate stuff that would diminish the enjoyment of the final product by being released early.
So I have an elegant an unobtrusive solution to track the few copies that people are working with as a matter of necessity:
My watermark is done per copy so it is unique, and involves changing three to four pixels only on one frame of the film in minor ways so they are not easily visible to the human eye when watching. Shift the colour of some pixels by only a couple of points, such that they are damn close to the real thing, but obvious if you know which frame to check and where, when blown up to 500% or so of original size.
Then simply keep a database of the "security dots" and where they are in each copy, eg:
45332 700 431 0 0 8
The above is frame 45332, X position 700, Y position 431, and the colour in RGB format. Three or four of those and a list of who has that copy, and I'm 100% able to figure out who leaked without degrading the picture in any visible way.
It isn't intrusive like CAP codes, and keeps everyone involved in working on the project from leaking copies as they know it can be traced back to them.
Right now Firefox has the ability to change the URL box colour to show that it is a secure site.
Well, why not as part of the anti-phishing concept, make it so all IDN sites cause that same URL window to show a different colour, so once again the user gets a visible prompt to be extra vigilant that the site is legit.
Those that use IDN due to their nationality can thereby continue to use IDN where necessary (and as with all Firefox stuff, customise userchrome.css to NOT change the colour if they want).
Personally I already customise my security colours with custom graphics to make it really obvious when security gets broken. It's a trivial step to do the same with IDN. For more info on my customisation you can visit Mozillazine (direct link from/. won't work so copy and paste URL and remove spaces):
Luckily the US Constitution provides for the means to remove them if they refuse to go. Something about the right to bear arms....
This is why I support the idea of US citizens owning weapons - not because I think they are good in general, but for that one occasion when they may need to use them to defend their soil against a corrupt government that refuses to obey the people that put them there and tries to marshall the armed forces against its own population.
Good luck America, you're going to need it in the years to come, if not sooner.
Because in classic fashion, the government won't get off their fat arses until someone embarrasses them into it. Since the info in now public, they will be forced into fixing it, thus the head of ANSTO, far from being stupid, is actually quite clever. Which is why he is the head of a nuclear facility.
Aside from which, the whole "nuclear plant" thing in this case is overblown anyway.... it's a scientific reactor, making fuel for X-ray machines etc. It's not a nuclear power plant as you would think of them. Even hitting it directly with an aircraft wouldn't create much damage or pollution.
But in our new fear happy world, any threat is a good threat as long as it keeps the populace frightened. Frightened people are easier to control, and control is what governments always seek more of. Google having maps means WE have control and can watch the watchers, so they don't like that.
Reminds me of the scene in Blade Runner where he identifies the snake scale by the serial number etched into it at microscopic level.
Could be a useful and non-permanent way of providing identity or other pertinent info while keeping open the option to remove it if necessary (no, not by pulling the nail but rather by filing the top surface down a little).
I am in film school. I intend to make movies for a living. I also agree that copyright as it stands today is grossly overextended.
So I intend, as far as possible, to make my movies with an eleven year copyright on them. Why 11 and not 10? Simply to allow for a ten year anniversary DVD etc before giving it back to the commons.
I'm hoping my stance will encourage yourself and others like you to support my films by buying them when I release them (if you like them of course!). I will try to put them online as simple non-DRM media files for free, with the hope that you will then buy the DVD from me with commentary tracks, extras etc. It's an experiment (and no films yet made to use as tests) but I firmly believe that people will respect me if I respect them as customers. Keep an eye on my website later in the year.
This is entirely correct. To date not ONE hosting site has challenged this in court. Why? Because the **AA are basically bullying them into submission with the threat of exhorbitant legal fees. Don't have limitless pockets to fight? Then what choice do you have?
When the first case goes to court, then and only then can we know for certain that merely hosting a torrent file is enough to fall foul of whatever laws exist in that country. And that is unlikely to happen because those bringing forth these extortions will make sure they compromise before that happens just in case they lose and precedent is set.
No wonder the US refuses to get involved and remove a genuine dictator in Zimbabwe... they were merely watching and learning for their own use how to evict those who don't tow the party line.
That, and there's no oil in Zimbabwe....
Expect many shootouts between "corporate" police and citizens defending their homes against corporate developers.
The whole argument about the internet and advertising goes to the cost of bandwidth, ie. so many GBs = so many $$$.
This is a time limited problem, because in the near future the internet will evolve away from fixed infrastructure and into wireless mesh technology, so you and I will provide bandwidth to each other essentially for a one time cost of the hardware.
Governments who are in the pay of lobbyists will try to enact laws against this sort of wireless commoditisation by various avenues, but it will fail because such a technology will be far too useful for mere laws to stop. Short of using jamming technology to thwart it, which could create a countermeasures industry alongside it, the prevalence of mesh wireless internet will be the next great democratisation of the world as we know it, providing the jump over the last means of control for others to regulate our internet usage via monetary or political means.
Firefox 1.1 will have it built in for easy access and "one click" clearing of sensitive info, but in the mean time the best one to use is "The Cleaner" extension which puts a little target icon in Firefox's statusbar which you can customise to clear only what you want (You may need to update version string to install):
I am currently in film school. I want to direct films that are entertaining, yet make me and the other people involved some money. As others have said, if I can't eat, I'm not going to be making many films.
However I think the current situation regarding copyright is, quite frankly, bullshit. So I am going to do something in return for the limited right to exclusivity copyright should provide me.
I am going to place a clause with my films stating that they are to revert to Creative Commons after 11 years. After that, you will be free to copy it ad nauseam for nothing, nada, zilch. Modify it, redistribute it, add to the universes the films have created; whatever. All I ask in return is that you be fair to me as well and do the right thing by recompensing me if you like my work.
I do plan to allow uploading/downloading of my films. In fact I will no doubt be the one initially seeding them since as a potential artist, I want others to see my films and provide them with entertainment. Think of it as shareware for films. I also plan to enforce a clause for my films on DVD etc that they cannot have any unskippable ads or FBI/interpol style crap before the main menu. We've all seen them by now, and if we haven't heeded the words already we're unlikely to start now are we? So my films will be accompanied by a small logo like "NoPUOs" or some such to let you, the potential customer, know that I respect your viewing my movie as much as you will hopefully respect me trying to make a living from my art.
Why 11 years? Well, ten seemed good at first but then I figured an extra year won't hurt, but it gives me one last chance to release a 10th Anniversary DVD for example and still perhaps make a little more money off it before returning it to the public domain. To me it sounds fair to do this and hopefully others will do the same.
Believe me, most of us coming through film school currently think that copyrights as they stand are untenable and will only serve to alienate us as filmmakers from our audience. I plan to do something constructive towards fixing it, but I will need your help to do it. I look forward to providing my films to you in the near future.
....and you have a scarily accurate picture of America right now. Problem is, most Americans here automatically mod down this very fact as it doesn't fit their worldview.
When you can understand that, you are half way to understanding your own nation's censorship by omission and how it affects your thought patterns.
Now transpose that idea to the Chinese population and it becomes quite apparent that much like the US, they actually BELIEVE in their government being right precisely BECAUSE of the censorship in place.
I'm enrolled in film school right now. I'm also a reasonably prolific downloader of movies. I also own over 300 legit DVDs and continually buy more. I used to have around 400 DivX's but most of those have long since been replaced by the real DVD which I bought.
I'd like to make money by directing movies. But I too hate the prevailing attitudes of the MPAA/RIAA towards consumers.
I will be doing my utmost to add clauses in any contracts I sign to the effect that the studio is forbidden from having PUOs, ads etc on my own DVD releases.
Further to that I intend to have a quick five second or so message (skippable of course) right at the start to inform consumers that the DVD is consumer friendly and doesn't carry any of the usual crap they seem increasingly infested with (no, I'm not referring to the movie for those looking for a cheap laugh at my expense!).
Look for my initiatives to hit the net etc towards the end of the year with any luck (my film website URL is in my sig but no content there yet).
Some of us believe we can still make money without screwing the consumer in the process.
Slashdot Mirror
I hate Norton as much as the next guy, but for the sake of some good uses of the word Genesis, please look at the Panavision Genesis camera - the world's BEST digital cinema camera bar none: http://www.panavision.com.au/News/Genesis.htm http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_HD_camera With a little luck (and a good amount of funding!!!) I will be using this camera to film my first feature film later this year...
I find it interesting how the US Army (and their political wing, the GOP) refer to soldiers of the opposing forces as "terrorists" these days (specifically Iraq at the moment), even though they are quite clearly in their own country, defending it from an invading army intent on stealing their resources and setting up a permanent outpost presence in their back yard.
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and paint a scenario for you:
Country X invades the US, ostensibly to "spread freedom and topple the rogue regime which created a police state, subjugated its own citizens under the dictator Bush and exported terror to the world". You and your friends, naturally pissed off that another country has unilaterally and quite obviously invaded you (regardless of the outside world's media spin on the reality of the situation on the ground), fight back against them. You don't officially belong to the US Army (routed early in the piece because they were a spent force after trying to invade too many countries at once), but you and your friends nonetheless form a citizens' militia and hit back however you can, improvising explosives and using all your skills and ingenuity to try to vanquish a militarily superior foe. You also begin killing those Americans who decided to cast their lot with the invaders and are assisting them to "restore law and order", since they are even lower on the scale of human refuse than the invaders - they are collaborators and traitors to their own people.
So, under that scenario, do you call yourself a "terrorist", a "freedom fighter", or are you part of an unofficial "citizens' army/militia/resistance"?
If you still consider the Iraqi resistance to be "terrorists" after thinking truthfully about the above scenario, but wouldn't call yourself that, then you are the worst type of hypocrite I know.
I sincerely hope though that after considering my scenario honestly, you will come to the conclusion that you need to redefine a terrorist a little more specifically, and then apply that evenly to players on all sides, not just those on the opposition.
I can dream, right?
I'm curious - why is it that you consider a sexual attraction to children an illness that has to be cured?
Do you consider homosexuality or lesbianism an illness that has to be cured? If yes, why. If no, why not, and why do you distinguish the various sexual attractions from one another on a sliding scale of "normal" to "ill"?
What about ephebophiles (those who are sexually attracted to teens who have begun to develop sexually but aren't attracted to proper children who haven't hit puberty yet)? This group in particular would seem to encompass almost all males if you judge it solely by the amount of "teen" porn on the net (though 99% of that porn is in actuality showing 18-25 year olds who look younger).
As previous posters have said, people cannot help their natural sexual attractions and forcing them to change is in my opinion far more harmful due to the repressive nature of the "treatments".
I ask all this because I classify myself in the ephebophile category and certainly don't think I am in any way "ill" as you put it. Over time I have come to know what I find most attractive in girls, and the traits I covet most (small breasts, hips, youthful face, wide eyes and mouth, small nose etc etc) are those that teenage girls exhibit, hence my realisation that I am in fact an ephebophile. I married a girl who had these features even though obviously she is older than 18, and for me personally that was enough from a sexual attraction perspective.
It also means that because I am comfortable with my own sexual persuasions, I also have a greater understanding for those who are homosexuals or lesbians, or any other type of pideon-hole you care to put someone in.
Since you are a girl according to your sig, I assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you like guys? Presuming you do (but modify the question to suit if not), ask yourself honestly, WHY do you like guys? When you can answer that honestly (good luck, I can't answer WHY I like teenage girls, I just do), you will hopefully see that others can no more help their sexual persuasion than you can help yours.
It's how you deal with that that shows your level of tolerance for those who are different from yourself.
It might also be instructive for you to do some research into the Japanese interest in Lolicon manga and why it is quite widespread and accepted there. Societal structures that establish what is "right" and what is "perverted" differ widely around the globe, so if that is the case, why is it that Western "values" are somehow right and others are wrong?
I think in the end, all humans have a sexual attraction, and that all of them are in fact a normal part of being human. That we marginalise some because of societal/religious notions speaks volumes of our evolution and just how far we have yet to go before we understand and accept all of our diversities instead of killing and otherwise tormenting each other over them.
I recently directed a short scifi film called "Eve" and put together the DVD myself.
As such, I made a conscious decision NOT to put any form of DRM on it. No PUOs, no CSS, no region codes. As a movie watcher I hate them, so why on earth would I subject someone else to it? I even placed a page on the DVD stating that, so people who watch it are made that little bit more aware that I am looking out for the viewer's interests in doing so. I've also expressly allowed people to make copies as long as it is for personal use only. If you want to distribute it commercially you'll need to licence it properly. That seems fair to me.
I plan on doing this for every film I make, because I think more and more that people will respond positively to those filmmakers who actually respect their audience and not try to screw them over every chance they get.
If you are interested in getting your own autographed copy of "Eve" then you can buy it from my website (see sig). That's another way to add value to something that can be freely copied by the way - make it personal and unique to the buyer. And why not? I am grateful for every copy I can sell as I'm just starting out and this seems like a great way to say thankyou.
Although the film is only fifteen minutes in length (including credits), the DVD contains about an hour and a half worth of special features, another way to add value.
If you are interested in more info please take a look at my website!
Actually I plan to do something similar with my film once it's completed.
I won't be waiving copyright, but I will be releasing it online for free as a full featured DVD (single layer). Torrents are the only way I could ever do this as there's no way I could pay for that sort of bandwidth myself.
How will I make any money from my art? Well that part is up to everyone who downloads it. If you like the film and want to contribute something back so I can make more films, I will be selling signed copies of the DVD via my website. That way you get something personal and I get to make more films. It's win win, but only if people are willing to pay for entertainment in a fair way.
We'll see if it works shortly....
Yes in all regions EXCEPT Region 4, that is Australia and New Zealand.
Which sucks, because I for one didn't realise until I'd bought my copy, having read overseas reviews (including Region 2 which I assumed would be simply altered for region code and shipped locally) which DID have both cuts of the film on DVD.
Buyer beware.
Mod parent down, factually incorrect.
The mask removal scene was ALSO edited to add in Hayden Christiansen. Compare the old and new side by side and you'd see that straight away. No doubt someone will link to some screenshots soon enough to prove my point.
No because the image I'm working with is already at DVD resolution (720x576 PAL anamorphic).
It's not meant for use once the film is released publically, it's an internal security measure to prevent an insider from releasing it before it is finished. I hate DRM and would not release a proper version with any in the first place.
I'm not talking about the resolution itself, because I realise that DVDs etc are interpolated anyway at those resolutions regardless of ratio. It's just that 1920x1080 means NO interpolation is necessary for HD material, thus giving the best possible image.
The problem addresses exactly what you are saying, that you don't want dead space (black bars) top or bottom of your image. My film is made at the 16:9 ratio for just this reason, so people with widescreen displays don't get any bars on their TVs. At 16:10 ratio, you either fill the screen and vertically stretchthe image away from it's real aspect, or you have small black bars top and bottom. It is this that I would like to see disappear.
I don't have a widescreen laptop yet, but when I do get one, I'd like to see it with a proper 16:9 display at HD resolution, i.e. 1920x1080, NOT the bastardised 16:10 ratio of 1920x1200.
/rant
Who were the idiots that decided that LCD panels should forego proper TV scale resolutions (4:3 and 16:9) and use the non-standard 5:4 and 16:10 ratios???
Is Microsoft responsible? Did they ask to have TV resolution plus taskbar addon resolution? I mean seriously - who watches a DVD at full screen width and keeps the taskbar visible? Anyone? Didn't think so, so why make the panels that way?
I have just directed my first short film and it is now in post production. I plan to release it online next year for free, once it has completed the festival circuit.
However, that said, the concern I have is early, unfinished copies of the film getting out, or rushes, or other intermediate stuff that would diminish the enjoyment of the final product by being released early.
So I have an elegant an unobtrusive solution to track the few copies that people are working with as a matter of necessity:
My watermark is done per copy so it is unique, and involves changing three to four pixels only on one frame of the film in minor ways so they are not easily visible to the human eye when watching. Shift the colour of some pixels by only a couple of points, such that they are damn close to the real thing, but obvious if you know which frame to check and where, when blown up to 500% or so of original size.
Then simply keep a database of the "security dots" and where they are in each copy, eg:
45332 700 431 0 0 8
The above is frame 45332, X position 700, Y position 431, and the colour in RGB format. Three or four of those and a list of who has that copy, and I'm 100% able to figure out who leaked without degrading the picture in any visible way.
It isn't intrusive like CAP codes, and keeps everyone involved in working on the project from leaking copies as they know it can be traced back to them.
Why can't Hollywood studios do it the same way?
Right now Firefox has the ability to change the URL box colour to show that it is a secure site.
/. won't work so copy and paste URL and remove spaces):
8 49
Well, why not as part of the anti-phishing concept, make it so all IDN sites cause that same URL window to show a different colour, so once again the user gets a visible prompt to be extra vigilant that the site is legit.
Those that use IDN due to their nationality can thereby continue to use IDN where necessary (and as with all Firefox stuff, customise userchrome.css to NOT change the colour if they want).
Personally I already customise my security colours with custom graphics to make it really obvious when security gets broken. It's a trivial step to do the same with IDN. For more info on my customisation you can visit Mozillazine (direct link from
http://forums.mozillazine.org/viewtopic.php?t=128
Luckily the US Constitution provides for the means to remove them if they refuse to go. Something about the right to bear arms....
This is why I support the idea of US citizens owning weapons - not because I think they are good in general, but for that one occasion when they may need to use them to defend their soil against a corrupt government that refuses to obey the people that put them there and tries to marshall the armed forces against its own population.
Good luck America, you're going to need it in the years to come, if not sooner.
Because in classic fashion, the government won't get off their fat arses until someone embarrasses them into it. Since the info in now public, they will be forced into fixing it, thus the head of ANSTO, far from being stupid, is actually quite clever. Which is why he is the head of a nuclear facility.
Aside from which, the whole "nuclear plant" thing in this case is overblown anyway.... it's a scientific reactor, making fuel for X-ray machines etc. It's not a nuclear power plant as you would think of them. Even hitting it directly with an aircraft wouldn't create much damage or pollution.
But in our new fear happy world, any threat is a good threat as long as it keeps the populace frightened. Frightened people are easier to control, and control is what governments always seek more of. Google having maps means WE have control and can watch the watchers, so they don't like that.
Thanks for the link to DVIO, I love tiny little programs like this that do just what they need with no cruft.
Since I am a budding filmmaker this will be of good use to me when going to HDV.
Reminds me of the scene in Blade Runner where he identifies the snake scale by the serial number etched into it at microscopic level.
Could be a useful and non-permanent way of providing identity or other pertinent info while keeping open the option to remove it if necessary (no, not by pulling the nail but rather by filing the top surface down a little).
Watch "The Thirteenth Floor" for a very similar scenario and ethical questions.
I am in film school. I intend to make movies for a living. I also agree that copyright as it stands today is grossly overextended.
So I intend, as far as possible, to make my movies with an eleven year copyright on them. Why 11 and not 10? Simply to allow for a ten year anniversary DVD etc before giving it back to the commons.
I'm hoping my stance will encourage yourself and others like you to support my films by buying them when I release them (if you like them of course!). I will try to put them online as simple non-DRM media files for free, with the hope that you will then buy the DVD from me with commentary tracks, extras etc. It's an experiment (and no films yet made to use as tests) but I firmly believe that people will respect me if I respect them as customers. Keep an eye on my website later in the year.
This is entirely correct. To date not ONE hosting site has challenged this in court. Why? Because the **AA are basically bullying them into submission with the threat of exhorbitant legal fees. Don't have limitless pockets to fight? Then what choice do you have?
When the first case goes to court, then and only then can we know for certain that merely hosting a torrent file is enough to fall foul of whatever laws exist in that country. And that is unlikely to happen because those bringing forth these extortions will make sure they compromise before that happens just in case they lose and precedent is set.
No wonder the US refuses to get involved and remove a genuine dictator in Zimbabwe... they were merely watching and learning for their own use how to evict those who don't tow the party line.
That, and there's no oil in Zimbabwe....
Expect many shootouts between "corporate" police and citizens defending their homes against corporate developers.
Enjoy your fascism, Americans!
The whole argument about the internet and advertising goes to the cost of bandwidth, ie. so many GBs = so many $$$.
This is a time limited problem, because in the near future the internet will evolve away from fixed infrastructure and into wireless mesh technology, so you and I will provide bandwidth to each other essentially for a one time cost of the hardware.
Governments who are in the pay of lobbyists will try to enact laws against this sort of wireless commoditisation by various avenues, but it will fail because such a technology will be far too useful for mere laws to stop. Short of using jamming technology to thwart it, which could create a countermeasures industry alongside it, the prevalence of mesh wireless internet will be the next great democratisation of the world as we know it, providing the jump over the last means of control for others to regulate our internet usage via monetary or political means.
Firefox 1.1 will have it built in for easy access and "one click" clearing of sensitive info, but in the mean time the best one to use is "The Cleaner" extension which puts a little target icon in Firefox's statusbar which you can customise to clear only what you want (You may need to update version string to install):
c =1173
http://www.extensionsmirror.nl/index.php?showtopi
Also CCleaner will erase all the sort of info you want erased to keep your browsing safe from prying eyes (Windows only):
http://www.ccleaner.com/
HTH
I am currently in film school. I want to direct films that are entertaining, yet make me and the other people involved some money. As others have said, if I can't eat, I'm not going to be making many films.
However I think the current situation regarding copyright is, quite frankly, bullshit. So I am going to do something in return for the limited right to exclusivity copyright should provide me.
I am going to place a clause with my films stating that they are to revert to Creative Commons after 11 years. After that, you will be free to copy it ad nauseam for nothing, nada, zilch. Modify it, redistribute it, add to the universes the films have created; whatever. All I ask in return is that you be fair to me as well and do the right thing by recompensing me if you like my work.
I do plan to allow uploading/downloading of my films. In fact I will no doubt be the one initially seeding them since as a potential artist, I want others to see my films and provide them with entertainment. Think of it as shareware for films. I also plan to enforce a clause for my films on DVD etc that they cannot have any unskippable ads or FBI/interpol style crap before the main menu. We've all seen them by now, and if we haven't heeded the words already we're unlikely to start now are we? So my films will be accompanied by a small logo like "NoPUOs" or some such to let you, the potential customer, know that I respect your viewing my movie as much as you will hopefully respect me trying to make a living from my art.
Why 11 years? Well, ten seemed good at first but then I figured an extra year won't hurt, but it gives me one last chance to release a 10th Anniversary DVD for example and still perhaps make a little more money off it before returning it to the public domain. To me it sounds fair to do this and hopefully others will do the same.
Believe me, most of us coming through film school currently think that copyrights as they stand are untenable and will only serve to alienate us as filmmakers from our audience. I plan to do something constructive towards fixing it, but I will need your help to do it. I look forward to providing my films to you in the near future.
....and you have a scarily accurate picture of America right now. Problem is, most Americans here automatically mod down this very fact as it doesn't fit their worldview.
When you can understand that, you are half way to understanding your own nation's censorship by omission and how it affects your thought patterns.
Now transpose that idea to the Chinese population and it becomes quite apparent that much like the US, they actually BELIEVE in their government being right precisely BECAUSE of the censorship in place.
Scary huh?
I'm enrolled in film school right now. I'm also a reasonably prolific downloader of movies. I also own over 300 legit DVDs and continually buy more. I used to have around 400 DivX's but most of those have long since been replaced by the real DVD which I bought.
I'd like to make money by directing movies. But I too hate the prevailing attitudes of the MPAA/RIAA towards consumers.
I will be doing my utmost to add clauses in any contracts I sign to the effect that the studio is forbidden from having PUOs, ads etc on my own DVD releases.
Further to that I intend to have a quick five second or so message (skippable of course) right at the start to inform consumers that the DVD is consumer friendly and doesn't carry any of the usual crap they seem increasingly infested with (no, I'm not referring to the movie for those looking for a cheap laugh at my expense!).
Look for my initiatives to hit the net etc towards the end of the year with any luck (my film website URL is in my sig but no content there yet).
Some of us believe we can still make money without screwing the consumer in the process.