I set up a filter to forward all messages coming to my sister's ISP account to her webmail account. The only problem was that the original Cc field was left intact. There happened to be some spam to the users of that ISP where recipient e-mails where in Cc. As a result, when a spam message was forwarded, it had Cc field intact and a copy went to every other user. And to sister's ISP account too. And then it was forwarded again. And again. And then again. I can't say I brought down the email system, but it did piss off other users.:)
I think the point of the original submitter was that for $800 million of taxpayer's money NASA could have sent to Mars a digital camera capable of making truecolour images, couldn't it?
What if I happen to work for NASA and have access to the original photos before they are processed and released? What would you say if I added hints of martians? Like a vehicle in distance or may be a silhouette of a person hiding behind a rock.
That's going to spur the interest in Mars all right. Is it worth it?
I am afraid you don't quite understand the definition of totalitarian. A totalitarian state is the one where the government can control most of the people most of the time and then act accordingly. It doesn't have to prohibit all forms of free expression.
Pre-war Iraq was not totalitarian. Secret police was actively preventing any organised political opposition, but it could not control most of the people. Afganistan is a total miss, the warlords did not control anything farther than a few kilometeres around and Taliban could only control what they saw (which wasn't much, because you need well equipped [thought] police). Just about any Islamic nation is a bad example as well. Mainland China used to be a somewhat totalitarian state, but you have to be damn good at controlling to do it in a country with 1 billion population.:) Pre-Glasnost Soviet Union is your only hit, but you must also realise that KPSS/KGB didn't have the technology in the 1980s that is available to the US (and other advanced countries) today.
You might be confusing totalitarian states (they see everything you do) with authoritarian states (the leader may do whatever he wants). But even then your examples are not correct, since China and USSR were not authoritarian.
As for the "idiots" you mention, their existence is permitted, because the government doesn't want to stop them yet, not because it cannot do that. There are many ways to make them shut up, simply drafting another little piece of legislation would do wonders. And if you believe that free expression is allowed in the States, just consider the groupthink menthality of your citizens and the corruption of your free media. Just think of how much opposition was in the mainstream media to attacks on Afganistan or Iraq. Not bloody much. Yes, it appeared later and it is allowed, but it is no longer a stretch of imagination to think that the media just might decide to support the government a little longer... And don't let me started on blatant lies, willfully perpetrated by media (because of which the average American now thinks that WMDs were found in Iraq and Saddam attacked WTC).
The more I look at it, the more it seems to me that all this mess is not someone's personal fault (i.e. not yours), it's the fault of the whole system. Clearly, software is a public good, or at least many sorts of software SHOULD BE public good. If only there was a GPL-like license. If only a public organisation would pay for software development so that it can be used for free by medical professionals, who would no longer need to worry about wasting 500$ on software (and let's admit it, it's always "wasting" when WE have to pay).
And of course, the whole "liability" stuff is totally wrong. Why on Earth should a person giving the software away be responsible for screw-ups, when companies selling it so often are not?...
Totally appalling. I think I will go infringe on some copyright to feel better.:)
I am not sure if I can support a copy protection scheme that introduces random crashes in a medical software. While this might be safe in your particular case, the idea still makes me writhe with disgust.
I completely agree. I've seen some real fine work done in Ukraine. Some even go all the way and make a box. The problem is that the average user doesn't know what they're doing is actually illegal.
In Ukraine, Russia, China and other poor, but free countries pirated copies are often pressed on the same plant where the licensed copies are (but not always). Sometimes the publisher would clearly say to the developers that they can expect to sell so many licensed and so many pirated copies. That's just the same thing as region encoding - you offer differently priced goods to different customer segments. And of course, pirated DVDs are packaged in completely the same way. The box art might differ, but the quality of packaging is the same. And both pirated and legit CDs (cheaper editions) are sold in the same "jewel" boxes (legit are sold in boxes as well).
And the average user knows what he gets pretty well. I don't know about USA, but most people here appear pretty capable of figuring this out.
As I have said to people, there is VERY little money made by the software company off end users. While we are talking about money made, let me tell you that there is also not really much money made by the pirates. Yes, they get a fair profit margin and a decent risk compensation, but in the end this is a competitive market and despite what one may think, it is not controlled by a cartel a la MPAA.
For example, imagine a small software house producing an innovative new software package, but then closing due to lack of sales. The package is now not going to be developed any more, even though there maybe many users (some using illegal copies). So piracy can cause the consumer to lose as well.
And the reason? Simple. The reason is that market economy has irrepairable flaws. So regardless of whether you have piracy or not, consumers lose compared with perfect allocation of resources. The best way to do that perfect allocation is planned economy where signals about how valuable a product is (demand) do not interfere with how much it costs to produce (supply), and where vote of more qualified people count more. Of course, we haven't seen a well-functioning planned economy, so this remains a hypothetical plan, but it is the only thing that might work better than the market.
Regardless of their other problems, countries that support local cinema sometimes tend to produce better movies overall than entirely market-driven Hollywood.
If you had RTFA, you would know that this is a pretty detailed explanation of several levels of Internet movie piracy, obviously written by someone who knows his shit, or at least bothered to do the research.
I have been following piracy-related articles and other materials for a few years and I can tell you that this is one of the best introductions to the topic that you can find on the Net today. Please have some respect for the author and save your sarcasm for a more appropriate occasion.
Do you know what is really scary about your post? That we are now just one small step from 1984. It is no longer a stretch to imagine what you just described, and this is true in most areas.
Just take the reality of present-day USA and push it one step further, only one miniscule step. And voila - instant totalitarian state.
That's insane... But thanks to that story I will remember to check out if my new scanner will work with dollars and euros before buying it. Same for any new printers. I may not be a counterfeiter, but I want to have freedom to print fake money if/when I need/want it.
It's like a six-foot fence in front of a minefield. Not decisive, but adds a little.
Now imagine that as a security measure six-foot fences were installed all over the country, including some across the road, some blocking entrances to schools, hospitals and mall, some in your backyard and one unlucky fellow got a six-foot fence across his bed, which had an unfortunate effect on his sexual life.
That's the case with this Photoshop feature. There are many legitimate currency-related usages for Photoshop. Most of them are now made impossible, simply because this might also deter one or two counterfeiters. All other security measures do not inconvenience honest people - this one does.
In short term it causes inflation, because the amount of money in the economy increases, while the amount of goods remains the same. There is also a certain positive effect, because you increase the money supply and this stimulates the economy. But the real issue is that wealth is unfairly redistributed - the person (or a company) who has to destroy the note loses that amount of money, which the counterfeiter unfairly gets.
People rarely check. The question is why? In Russia most cashiers check 100 rouble bills (note how the Central Bank doesn't mind showing scans in the section, which appears as the 2nd link on the front page), which cost about 4 USD, even though most transactions in Russia are cash (unlike the US, where most payments are done by credit cards).
And if cashiers do not care enough about counterfeit notes, why should Adobe? If fake bills are a problem, surely crippling imaging software completely unrelated to most forgeries should be somewhere in the bottom of the list...
Your example made me thinking about legitimate uses for currency scan photoshopping. Numismatics. There are countless sites like ATSnotes that post scans of banknotes. Certainly there are cases when you need to open Photoshop to clean the scan, adjust the colours, etc. Apparently, Adobe felt that they have the authority on what activities are permissible. I fucking hate them. The only thing that prevents me from boycotting Adobe is the fact that I use pirated versions of their soft anyway and don't actually use Photoshop (PhotoImpact more pleasant to use.
The much worst problem is that different people will see the same image differently. Check out any porn gallery. The first image is clearly non-pornographic. The second one is mosly likely non-pornographic. The third one is risque. The fourth is probably porn. The fifth one is definitely porn. That's my opinions. Show these images to my mother and she might have different opinions. Show them to my grandma and you might hear yet another one.
Even we, humans, can't clearly identify porn. You know, one man's porn is another man's art. And since an objective criteria is impossible, a computer can't reliably do the job.
Do you really-really need to offer streaming media that much? How about offering non-proprietary AVI files of different size for download? I bet that would make your visitors much happier - the ability to save the files locally, the ability to play them when disconnected from the net, or to move them to another computer?
Check out the example of the ultimate consumer-oriented industry - Internet porn. Do they offer streaming real/QT/WMA clips? No, they don't. Everything is downloadable and most of it is AVI/MPEG. Why do they do it, even though they want to control the files somewhat, since that's what they are being paid for? Because they know that streaming media is too much of an inconvenience.
It depends on what you make yourself believe in. Some people believe that driving in anything less than a Mercedes or BMW is torture. Some believe that living in a house that cost less than $1 mln is like living in a ghetto. Needless to say, such people are wrong. If you force yourself to enjoy a DVD version more, you are forcing yourself to enjoy a cam less. And why would you do that, I don't know.:)
Seriously, I have X-Men DVD-Rip and X2 cam version and I can tell you that I enjoyed both of them equally (besides story differences). Yes, some eye-candy should be seen in DVD quality, but in many cases it's not true. Your imagination is much more important anyway.:)
As for LOTR, I saw FOTR more than 10 times, 5 times in the cinema, and I can tell you that there is no significant difference between watching it at the movies or watching a DVD-Rip on your PC. And IMNSHO ROTK sucks so much that even an IMAX version would not save it.
As for the Revolutions, I suggest you check out the nearest IMAX theatre and watch it there instead.
Re:Finding child porn on the Internet
on
What You Can't Say
·
· Score: 1
Well, I do have a point. It being that there is a lot of legal (and moral) material that is considered taboo. Regardless of what you think of Michael Jackson, sleeping with boys in one bed is not horrible. Even touching their genitals doesn't do them much harm, especially when compensated with great time, gifts and money (otherwise, why would most of them be happy to continue meeting Michael).
And there are countless things that are clearly even less horrible. Pictures of naked kids are not evil, stories about having sex with kids (or kids having sex between themselves) are not evil. Filming sex between kids is probably not that bad, because they are allowed to have sex in most places and being filmed doesn't do much harm by itself. Drawings and renderings of kids having sex should be ok. Talking about having sex with kids, about others having sex with kids, about paedophilia in general should be protected speech (it's not in Canada - any discussion of sex with minors falls under their definition of child porn).
Simply put, there is a lot of material that is taboo in the US and to a lesser extent in Western Europe.
Add to that the fact that distributing and posessing already existing child porn should not be illegal, since it doesn't harm anyone.
And please don't make sweeping statements like "sex with minors... results in an inability to have a healthy family life as an adult". This is not true. Sex with minors may lead to problems for them, but in many cases it doesn't. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, our ancestors did it very early - if it was so harmful, we would not exist today. It is well known (although it is taboo as well) that in many cases memories about child abuse where false and where implanted by psychologists. It is also true that in many cases police, parents and doctors during the investigation harm a kid more than the sexual act itself did.
Finally, don't forget that a lot of child porn is made in countries where the only alternative to having sex with adults for money or starring in porn is to starve. The western society is good at overlooking it (like they shown yesterday on Animal Planet, sometimes we spend more time on retired greyhound runners than we do on helping starving people in third world), but it is true. Many kids you see in child porn are actually better off because of it.
I actually meant "2+2=4", just like Smith wanted to be able to say. Sorry, stupid mistake.:( The point is that to be free I need to be able to speak about child porn, download and distribute it as much as I want (regardless of whether I would actually do it).
How can a theatre owner compete with someone selling bootleg copies for $1.00 a piece? These people are already willing to watch a crappy camera rip. I don't see how the theatre experience is really relevant at this point. My best guess would be these people never really were potential clients for the theatre.
As you know there will always be people willing to pay for an inferior product if it's considerably less. The solution is simply to stop expecting money from these people. Make movies for paying customers. If there are not enough paying customers, stop making movies. Don't just presume that people who clearly value your product at 1$ owe you something, for they don't.
Cams are all right. The quality of films shown in movie theatres in the past is comparable to today's cam versions. So if it was ok for my parents to watch Seven Samurai on shitty screen with shitty projector and equally shitty sound, it's probably ok for me to watch ROTK cam version in DivX. And in regards to this specific film, I don't really see the point in wasting money on either a movie ticket or a DVD.
Sometimes you feel like you need perfect quality, but rarely you really do. I saw Revolutions in normal theatre, then in IMAX and every now and then I watch some of my favourite scenes on DivX cam version. And it works.
I also saw a cam of Finding Nemo and just a few weeks ago saw a trailer for it in the cinema. I do not really feel like I missed anything, cam was more than enough to enjoy it.
Well, as a transhumanist I can tell about this one. Telling ordniary people that it will be soon possible to live forever through technological means, telling about mind uploading or nanotechnologies, all that is heresy in a modern society. The immortality is a particularly big one.
Most people immediately start giving extremely lame and fake reasons why nobody should/wants to live forever (it will be boring, society will stagnate, I don't want to live if my friends die, it's against the nature, etc.).
Slashdot Mirror
I set up a filter to forward all messages coming to my sister's ISP account to her webmail account. The only problem was that the original Cc field was left intact. There happened to be some spam to the users of that ISP where recipient e-mails where in Cc. As a result, when a spam message was forwarded, it had Cc field intact and a copy went to every other user. And to sister's ISP account too. And then it was forwarded again. And again. And then again. I can't say I brought down the email system, but it did piss off other users. :)
I think the point of the original submitter was that for $800 million of taxpayer's money NASA could have sent to Mars a digital camera capable of making truecolour images, couldn't it?
What if I happen to work for NASA and have access to the original photos before they are processed and released? What would you say if I added hints of martians? Like a vehicle in distance or may be a silhouette of a person hiding behind a rock.
That's going to spur the interest in Mars all right. Is it worth it?
I am afraid you don't quite understand the definition of totalitarian. A totalitarian state is the one where the government can control most of the people most of the time and then act accordingly. It doesn't have to prohibit all forms of free expression.
:) Pre-Glasnost Soviet Union is your only hit, but you must also realise that KPSS/KGB didn't have the technology in the 1980s that is available to the US (and other advanced countries) today.
Pre-war Iraq was not totalitarian. Secret police was actively preventing any organised political opposition, but it could not control most of the people. Afganistan is a total miss, the warlords did not control anything farther than a few kilometeres around and Taliban could only control what they saw (which wasn't much, because you need well equipped [thought] police). Just about any Islamic nation is a bad example as well. Mainland China used to be a somewhat totalitarian state, but you have to be damn good at controlling to do it in a country with 1 billion population.
You might be confusing totalitarian states (they see everything you do) with authoritarian states (the leader may do whatever he wants). But even then your examples are not correct, since China and USSR were not authoritarian.
As for the "idiots" you mention, their existence is permitted, because the government doesn't want to stop them yet, not because it cannot do that. There are many ways to make them shut up, simply drafting another little piece of legislation would do wonders. And if you believe that free expression is allowed in the States, just consider the groupthink menthality of your citizens and the corruption of your free media. Just think of how much opposition was in the mainstream media to attacks on Afganistan or Iraq. Not bloody much. Yes, it appeared later and it is allowed, but it is no longer a stretch of imagination to think that the media just might decide to support the government a little longer... And don't let me started on blatant lies, willfully perpetrated by media (because of which the average American now thinks that WMDs were found in Iraq and Saddam attacked WTC).
The more I look at it, the more it seems to me that all this mess is not someone's personal fault (i.e. not yours), it's the fault of the whole system. Clearly, software is a public good, or at least many sorts of software SHOULD BE public good. If only there was a GPL-like license. If only a public organisation would pay for software development so that it can be used for free by medical professionals, who would no longer need to worry about wasting 500$ on software (and let's admit it, it's always "wasting" when WE have to pay).
:)
And of course, the whole "liability" stuff is totally wrong. Why on Earth should a person giving the software away be responsible for screw-ups, when companies selling it so often are not?...
Totally appalling. I think I will go infringe on some copyright to feel better.
I am not sure if I can support a copy protection scheme that introduces random crashes in a medical software. While this might be safe in your particular case, the idea still makes me writhe with disgust.
I completely agree. I've seen some real fine work done in Ukraine. Some even go all the way and make a box. The problem is that the average user doesn't know what they're doing is actually illegal.
In Ukraine, Russia, China and other poor, but free countries pirated copies are often pressed on the same plant where the licensed copies are (but not always). Sometimes the publisher would clearly say to the developers that they can expect to sell so many licensed and so many pirated copies. That's just the same thing as region encoding - you offer differently priced goods to different customer segments. And of course, pirated DVDs are packaged in completely the same way. The box art might differ, but the quality of packaging is the same. And both pirated and legit CDs (cheaper editions) are sold in the same "jewel" boxes (legit are sold in boxes as well).
And the average user knows what he gets pretty well. I don't know about USA, but most people here appear pretty capable of figuring this out.
As I have said to people, there is VERY little money made by the software company off end users.
While we are talking about money made, let me tell you that there is also not really much money made by the pirates. Yes, they get a fair profit margin and a decent risk compensation, but in the end this is a competitive market and despite what one may think, it is not controlled by a cartel a la MPAA.
For example, imagine a small software house producing an innovative new software package, but then closing due to lack of sales. The package is now not going to be developed any more, even though there maybe many users (some using illegal copies). So piracy can cause the consumer to lose as well.
And the reason? Simple. The reason is that market economy has irrepairable flaws. So regardless of whether you have piracy or not, consumers lose compared with perfect allocation of resources. The best way to do that perfect allocation is planned economy where signals about how valuable a product is (demand) do not interfere with how much it costs to produce (supply), and where vote of more qualified people count more. Of course, we haven't seen a well-functioning planned economy, so this remains a hypothetical plan, but it is the only thing that might work better than the market.
Regardless of their other problems, countries that support local cinema sometimes tend to produce better movies overall than entirely market-driven Hollywood.
If you had RTFA, you would know that this is a pretty detailed explanation of several levels of Internet movie piracy, obviously written by someone who knows his shit, or at least bothered to do the research.
I have been following piracy-related articles and other materials for a few years and I can tell you that this is one of the best introductions to the topic that you can find on the Net today. Please have some respect for the author and save your sarcasm for a more appropriate occasion.
That's how it should be - a protection measure that doesn't interfere with legitimate uses, but prevents illegal ones.
Do you know what is really scary about your post? That we are now just one small step from 1984. It is no longer a stretch to imagine what you just described, and this is true in most areas.
Just take the reality of present-day USA and push it one step further, only one miniscule step. And voila - instant totalitarian state.
I've been using product activation for a few years already, and it's quite convenient, actually...
That's insane... But thanks to that story I will remember to check out if my new scanner will work with dollars and euros before buying it. Same for any new printers. I may not be a counterfeiter, but I want to have freedom to print fake money if/when I need/want it.
I hope Adobe has a special version for the Treasury Department that doesn't have this restriction!
I hope it doesn't. May be then everyone will realise just how stupid this whole situation is...
It's like a six-foot fence in front of a minefield. Not decisive, but adds a little.
Now imagine that as a security measure six-foot fences were installed all over the country, including some across the road, some blocking entrances to schools, hospitals and mall, some in your backyard and one unlucky fellow got a six-foot fence across his bed, which had an unfortunate effect on his sexual life.
That's the case with this Photoshop feature. There are many legitimate currency-related usages for Photoshop. Most of them are now made impossible, simply because this might also deter one or two counterfeiters. All other security measures do not inconvenience honest people - this one does.
In short term it causes inflation, because the amount of money in the economy increases, while the amount of goods remains the same. There is also a certain positive effect, because you increase the money supply and this stimulates the economy. But the real issue is that wealth is unfairly redistributed - the person (or a company) who has to destroy the note loses that amount of money, which the counterfeiter unfairly gets.
People rarely check.
The question is why? In Russia most cashiers check 100 rouble bills (note how the Central Bank doesn't mind showing scans in the section, which appears as the 2nd link on the front page), which cost about 4 USD, even though most transactions in Russia are cash (unlike the US, where most payments are done by credit cards).
And if cashiers do not care enough about counterfeit notes, why should Adobe? If fake bills are a problem, surely crippling imaging software completely unrelated to most forgeries should be somewhere in the bottom of the list...
Your example made me thinking about legitimate uses for currency scan photoshopping. Numismatics. There are countless sites like ATSnotes that post scans of banknotes. Certainly there are cases when you need to open Photoshop to clean the scan, adjust the colours, etc. Apparently, Adobe felt that they have the authority on what activities are permissible. I fucking hate them. The only thing that prevents me from boycotting Adobe is the fact that I use pirated versions of their soft anyway and don't actually use Photoshop (PhotoImpact more pleasant to use.
The much worst problem is that different people will see the same image differently. Check out any porn gallery. The first image is clearly non-pornographic. The second one is mosly likely non-pornographic. The third one is risque. The fourth is probably porn. The fifth one is definitely porn. That's my opinions. Show these images to my mother and she might have different opinions. Show them to my grandma and you might hear yet another one.
Even we, humans, can't clearly identify porn. You know, one man's porn is another man's art. And since an objective criteria is impossible, a computer can't reliably do the job.
Do you really-really need to offer streaming media that much? How about offering non-proprietary AVI files of different size for download? I bet that would make your visitors much happier - the ability to save the files locally, the ability to play them when disconnected from the net, or to move them to another computer?
Check out the example of the ultimate consumer-oriented industry - Internet porn. Do they offer streaming real/QT/WMA clips? No, they don't. Everything is downloadable and most of it is AVI/MPEG. Why do they do it, even though they want to control the files somewhat, since that's what they are being paid for? Because they know that streaming media is too much of an inconvenience.
It depends on what you make yourself believe in. Some people believe that driving in anything less than a Mercedes or BMW is torture. Some believe that living in a house that cost less than $1 mln is like living in a ghetto. Needless to say, such people are wrong. If you force yourself to enjoy a DVD version more, you are forcing yourself to enjoy a cam less. And why would you do that, I don't know. :)
:)
Seriously, I have X-Men DVD-Rip and X2 cam version and I can tell you that I enjoyed both of them equally (besides story differences). Yes, some eye-candy should be seen in DVD quality, but in many cases it's not true. Your imagination is much more important anyway.
As for LOTR, I saw FOTR more than 10 times, 5 times in the cinema, and I can tell you that there is no significant difference between watching it at the movies or watching a DVD-Rip on your PC. And IMNSHO ROTK sucks so much that even an IMAX version would not save it.
As for the Revolutions, I suggest you check out the nearest IMAX theatre and watch it there instead.
Well, I do have a point. It being that there is a lot of legal (and moral) material that is considered taboo. Regardless of what you think of Michael Jackson, sleeping with boys in one bed is not horrible. Even touching their genitals doesn't do them much harm, especially when compensated with great time, gifts and money (otherwise, why would most of them be happy to continue meeting Michael).
:( The point is that to be free I need to be able to speak about child porn, download and distribute it as much as I want (regardless of whether I would actually do it).
:)
And there are countless things that are clearly even less horrible. Pictures of naked kids are not evil, stories about having sex with kids (or kids having sex between themselves) are not evil. Filming sex between kids is probably not that bad, because they are allowed to have sex in most places and being filmed doesn't do much harm by itself. Drawings and renderings of kids having sex should be ok. Talking about having sex with kids, about others having sex with kids, about paedophilia in general should be protected speech (it's not in Canada - any discussion of sex with minors falls under their definition of child porn).
Simply put, there is a lot of material that is taboo in the US and to a lesser extent in Western Europe.
Add to that the fact that distributing and posessing already existing child porn should not be illegal, since it doesn't harm anyone.
And please don't make sweeping statements like "sex with minors... results in an inability to have a healthy family life as an adult". This is not true. Sex with minors may lead to problems for them, but in many cases it doesn't. As mentioned elsewhere in this discussion, our ancestors did it very early - if it was so harmful, we would not exist today. It is well known (although it is taboo as well) that in many cases memories about child abuse where false and where implanted by psychologists. It is also true that in many cases police, parents and doctors during the investigation harm a kid more than the sexual act itself did.
Finally, don't forget that a lot of child porn is made in countries where the only alternative to having sex with adults for money or starring in porn is to starve. The western society is good at overlooking it (like they shown yesterday on Animal Planet, sometimes we spend more time on retired greyhound runners than we do on helping starving people in third world), but it is true. Many kids you see in child porn are actually better off because of it.
I actually meant "2+2=4", just like Smith wanted to be able to say. Sorry, stupid mistake.
And you couldn't downmod me and post.
How can a theatre owner compete with someone selling bootleg copies for $1.00 a piece? These people are already willing to watch a crappy camera rip. I don't see how the theatre experience is really relevant at this point.
My best guess would be these people never really were potential clients for the theatre.
As you know there will always be people willing to pay for an inferior product if it's considerably less.
The solution is simply to stop expecting money from these people. Make movies for paying customers. If there are not enough paying customers, stop making movies. Don't just presume that people who clearly value your product at 1$ owe you something, for they don't.
Cams are all right. The quality of films shown in movie theatres in the past is comparable to today's cam versions. So if it was ok for my parents to watch Seven Samurai on shitty screen with shitty projector and equally shitty sound, it's probably ok for me to watch ROTK cam version in DivX. And in regards to this specific film, I don't really see the point in wasting money on either a movie ticket or a DVD.
Sometimes you feel like you need perfect quality, but rarely you really do. I saw Revolutions in normal theatre, then in IMAX and every now and then I watch some of my favourite scenes on DivX cam version. And it works.
I also saw a cam of Finding Nemo and just a few weeks ago saw a trailer for it in the cinema. I do not really feel like I missed anything, cam was more than enough to enjoy it.
Well, as a transhumanist I can tell about this one. Telling ordniary people that it will be soon possible to live forever through technological means, telling about mind uploading or nanotechnologies, all that is heresy in a modern society. The immortality is a particularly big one.
Most people immediately start giving extremely lame and fake reasons why nobody should/wants to live forever (it will be boring, society will stagnate, I don't want to live if my friends die, it's against the nature, etc.).