no, that would be the master AACS key, if one exists.. HDCP is the component interconnect encryption.. from player to receiver to display..
Correct, his rant would be more accurately addressed to the CEA - Consumer Electronics Association - about finally purchasing a blu-ray player and HDMI-equipped television.
So you record the stream from the player to the display. No big difference.
It implies a lossy decode and re-encode rather than a bit-for-bit copy.
However, 99.9% of all bluray pirating seems to be lossy re-encodes anyway - mainly for the size reduction. When done well, those re-encodes are essentially indistinguishable from the originals (It helps that x264, the pirate's encoder of choice, just happens to be the most efficient h264 implementation that is generally available - so the pirated versions have a better picture-quality-to-size ratio than then legitimate releases which are used as source material for the pirated versions).
I never suggested they should have pulled the troops out immediately.
Of course you didn't - you just suggested that people who voted for Obama were that stupid.
I mean you fell over yourself taking things out of context and defending your supreme leader.
Lol - only a sycophant insists on seeing everyone he disagrees with as sycophants. I didn't even vote for Obama. If Obama is the "supreme leader" of someone who didn't vote for him, doesn't like the direction he took healthcare and didn't like his continuing Bush's policies of economic intervention, then you must be impaled on Bush's cock.
Anyways, perhaps you should look at this PR talking point and get back to me.
Yeah, what's your point? We've already agreed on the fact that Obama continued doing what Bush eventually ended up doing after all the fucking around that came before.
once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything.
And that in no way implies that they thought he would end them immediately upon taking office. Nope, no implication of expecting the opposite of what happened at all.
No, I said that free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment is to allow people to participate in the political discourse.
(A) I quoted your own words and did not alter the context, quit trying to weasel. (B) You are wrong - if what you said were true, that the intent of the first amendment was to allow participation in political discourse - that fact would be included in the amendment. It is not. The first amendment doesn't even provide an example of usage like the way second amendment does.
And that's only one type of speech that isn't completely free of consequences. Why don't you address the others
Because your claim that you "can't make false statements about people" was so broad that instances of it outnumber all of your other examples by many orders of magnitude. Proving 99.99% of your premise to be false is good enough to demonstrate that you really didn't know what you were talking about.
It only took a quick scan of your post to see that you fucked up your punctuation and misused the word "using." There's probably more there if I cared enough to read more closely. I recommend a new day job.
fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.
Way to twist it. He campaigned on those plans - that they were substantially SOFA is no big deal - for one thing Obama was campaigning on that general strategy at roughly the same time that the Iraq SOFA was being negotiated. No one with half a brain could listen to Obama's campaigning and take away that his goal was an immediate pull-out of troops upon inauguration. Although a dumbass who listened to the PR machine of his political opponents rather than think for himself would probably come away with that impression. There was a hell of a lot of bullshit about "cut-and-run" being spread around during that election.
In regards to the limits of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, please explain where I'm wrong.
There are lots of things you cannot blithely say... you can't make false statements about people
For starters, you can make all kinds of false statements about people, especially if it is done blithely. For example, there are tens, if not hundreds, of false statements made about every sitting president every day in the press. Same thing with pretty much any public figure. Here's one - Obama's a muslim. See? Ain't no one going to jail for that.
I'm half-way tempted to go into the DRM business. If you're being paid buckets of money to build something that you know won't work it never matters if you fail. Wouldn't that be nice?
It's great work, if you can get it. Rovi Corp (formerly Macrovision Corp) has a net worth of well over 3 Billion Dollars.
I was thinking in the same direction. Why/How would someone out there know to use a particular trademarked name and to also use a particular person's name who is associated with the company as an IT person to register a domain name?!
His info was on the legitimate domains, the typosquatter just reused the information in order to make their domain seem even more legitimate - whenever I have a question about a domain I do a whois lookup and I gotta admit, this would have probably fooled me.
The people that were smashing car windows in our neighborhood were seen, and followed running back to their house in our neighborhood.
Kids, right? I bet you live in a gated neighborhood too. Happens all the time in those kinds of places - teenagers commit crimes of convenience because they are bored and hormonal, not because of any really criminal intent. Funny thing, most gated neighborhoods actually have equal or even higher rates of crime because the kids are somewhat "locked in" and people are foolish enough to think the gates keep criminals out so they are often less attentive.
They're buying the damned book themselves, paying cash for it. It's not really censorship if they, instead of banning it, go through entirely legal channels to simply purchase every copy of it, is it?
It is when they are requiring that any additional print runs be redacted, which is the case here.
That's revolting. Why would anyone deal with that, on principle? What happens if you leave the house to someone in a will? Surely the person who receives the house isn't contractually obligated to sell the house back to the realtor?
Dunno - but here's another one: Don't buy the house yourself, put the title in the name of a dummy corp and then just sell the dummy corp. You'll have problems getting a mortgage, but in a retirement community I suspect that most people are going to be cashing out of previous homes for which they've fully paid down the mortgage.
What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.
Precrime much?
You've just rationalized any amount of government interference because there is always a chance that something will go wrong. And don't even try to backpedal because you just called a man assinine for complaining that under the proposed system "anyone could be a suspect."
I would appreciate it if my kid's school would tell me what he was eating or if he was eating.
Never gonna happen. At best they can tell you what food he had on his tray when they charged him for the meal. You try to do anything with that information - like yell at him for not eating the right food and all you'll accomplish is to train him how to game the system.
"We're making sure that as they're leaving the lunch line that the menu items they've selected match up with state law, so they're selecting a meal that has all the basic [components] of good nutrition," said school district spokesman Jarrett Peterson. "We're not tracking what each individual child eats."
If that were true they would not need a PIN, just a pass/fail for whatever is on their tray. Pass you get to go and eat, fail you get back in line and get your vegetables.
When I was in public school we didn't even have a choice - everybody's meal was exactly the same. Other than outliers with food allergies, why aren't they doing that? No need for any of this technology crap (which, I'd be surprised if it weren't a sweet-heart corporate socialism deal for some company that is owned by a member of the school board) and they probably save money by streamlining preparation and purchasing too.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm too tired to do the math and calculate how much storage a full Blu-Ray disc stream would require.
# dc
1920 1080 * p
2073600
3 * p
6220800
24 * p
149299200
60 * p
8957952000
100 * p
895795200000
1024 / p
874800000
1024 / p
854296
1024 / p
834
That's about 834GB for a 100 minute movie at 24fps.
Plus audio.
no, that would be the master AACS key, if one exists.. HDCP is the component interconnect encryption.. from player to receiver to display..
Correct, his rant would be more accurately addressed to the CEA - Consumer Electronics Association - about finally purchasing a blu-ray player and HDMI-equipped television.
So you record the stream from the player to the display. No big difference.
It implies a lossy decode and re-encode rather than a bit-for-bit copy.
However, 99.9% of all bluray pirating seems to be lossy re-encodes anyway - mainly for the size reduction. When done well, those re-encodes are essentially indistinguishable from the originals (It helps that x264, the pirate's encoder of choice, just happens to be the most efficient h264 implementation that is generally available - so the pirated versions have a better picture-quality-to-size ratio than then legitimate releases which are used as source material for the pirated versions).
I'm not sure how you can get sycophant out of what I wrote,
Really? You think accusing someone of following a "supreme leader" in no way implies bootlicking toadyism?
I'm also puzzled to why you rushed to defend Obama
See, right there, you are stuck in that mental rut.
Just because I said you were wrong doesn't mean I was defending anyone.
Truth is not partisan.
Without a modicum of self-awareness you can't even hear the basic assumptions in your own words.
There are millions of engineers in this country that aren't going around blowing stuff up and killing people.
Not all engineers are terrorists, but all terrorists are engineers!!!
Except for the 94% that Aren't.
I never suggested they should have pulled the troops out immediately.
Of course you didn't - you just suggested that people who voted for Obama were that stupid.
I mean you fell over yourself taking things out of context and defending your supreme leader.
Lol - only a sycophant insists on seeing everyone he disagrees with as sycophants. I didn't even vote for Obama.
If Obama is the "supreme leader" of someone who didn't vote for him, doesn't like the direction he took healthcare and didn't like his continuing Bush's policies of economic intervention, then you must be impaled on Bush's cock.
Anyways, perhaps you should look at this PR talking point and get back to me.
Yeah, what's your point? We've already agreed on the fact that Obama continued doing what Bush eventually ended up doing after all the fucking around that came before.
once obama was elected, they had some sort of trust that the wars were somewhat necessary seeing how he didn't end them or anything.
And that in no way implies that they thought he would end them immediately upon taking office.
Nope, no implication of expecting the opposite of what happened at all.
No, I said that free speech as guaranteed by the first amendment is to allow people to participate in the political discourse.
(A) I quoted your own words and did not alter the context, quit trying to weasel.
(B) You are wrong - if what you said were true, that the intent of the first amendment was to allow participation in political discourse - that fact would be included in the amendment. It is not. The first amendment doesn't even provide an example of usage like the way second amendment does.
And that's only one type of speech that isn't completely free of consequences. Why don't you address the others
Because your claim that you "can't make false statements about people" was so broad that instances of it outnumber all of your other examples by many orders of magnitude. Proving 99.99% of your premise to be false is good enough to demonstrate that you really didn't know what you were talking about.
Hypocracy? What hypocracy? Total Government control is a party platform.
Hypocracy - government by people who are below average?
Grammar Nazi Karma strikes again...
It only took a quick scan of your post to see that you fucked up your punctuation and misused the word "using."
There's probably more there if I cared enough to read more closely.
I recommend a new day job.
fun fact, Obama's ending of the Iraq war was little more then renaming the support and training troops that were scheduled to be left behind from Bush's SOFA agreement that was created about a year before the elections.
Way to twist it. He campaigned on those plans - that they were substantially SOFA is no big deal - for one thing Obama was campaigning on that general strategy at roughly the same time that the Iraq SOFA was being negotiated. No one with half a brain could listen to Obama's campaigning and take away that his goal was an immediate pull-out of troops upon inauguration. Although a dumbass who listened to the PR machine of his political opponents rather than think for himself would probably come away with that impression. There was a hell of a lot of bullshit about "cut-and-run" being spread around during that election.
The US constitution defines and limits the powers of the US government. It does not grant any "unalienable rights"
+1 bingo.
Didn't say you'd go to jail, said there are consequences.
Consequences which you immediately defined as "the government interfering" - the government only interferes through through threat of jail.
In regards to the limits of the First Amendment of the US Constitution, please explain where I'm wrong.
There are lots of things you cannot blithely say ... you can't make false statements about people
For starters, you can make all kinds of false statements about people, especially if it is done blithely. For example, there are tens, if not hundreds, of false statements made about every sitting president every day in the press. Same thing with pretty much any public figure. Here's one - Obama's a muslim. See? Ain't no one going to jail for that.
I'm half-way tempted to go into the DRM business. If you're being paid buckets of money to build something that you know won't work it never matters if you fail. Wouldn't that be nice?
It's great work, if you can get it. Rovi Corp (formerly Macrovision Corp) has a net worth of well over 3 Billion Dollars.
Copyright infringement is not an exact analogy with theft, as is regularly pointed out on /. , but there are some valid comparisons to be made.
None of which are comparisons to rivalrous and excludable goods.
And yet people do all of the above without a moments thought. Kind of makes you wonder if the Constitution is even 0.001% relevant to todays society ?
It should make you wonder whether Score Whore knows what he's talking about - for the most part, he doesn't.
Aren't burglar alarms housed in big red/blue boxes on the outside of houses?
Yeah, they even have labels on them that say "burglar alarm - do not tamper under penalty of law!"
And Google Street View's a gift for casing the joint - checking houses without burglar alarms, or with old/cheap ones
Yeah because you can totally see a burglar alarm from the street -- with google's resolution you can't even see if they have a sticker in the window.
I was thinking in the same direction. Why/How would someone out there know to use a particular trademarked name and to also use a particular person's name who is associated with the company as an IT person to register a domain name?!
His info was on the legitimate domains, the typosquatter just reused the information in order to make their domain seem even more legitimate - whenever I have a question about a domain I do a whois lookup and I gotta admit, this would have probably fooled me.
The people that were smashing car windows in our neighborhood were seen, and followed running back to their house in our neighborhood.
Kids, right? I bet you live in a gated neighborhood too. Happens all the time in those kinds of places - teenagers commit crimes of convenience because they are bored and hormonal, not because of any really criminal intent. Funny thing, most gated neighborhoods actually have equal or even higher rates of crime because the kids are somewhat "locked in" and people are foolish enough to think the gates keep criminals out so they are often less attentive.
They're buying the damned book themselves, paying cash for it. It's not really censorship if they, instead of banning it, go through entirely legal channels to simply purchase every copy of it, is it?
It is when they are requiring that any additional print runs be redacted, which is the case here.
That's revolting. Why would anyone deal with that, on principle? What happens if you leave the house to someone in a will? Surely the person who receives the house isn't contractually obligated to sell the house back to the realtor?
Dunno - but here's another one: Don't buy the house yourself, put the title in the name of a dummy corp and then just sell the dummy corp. You'll have problems getting a mortgage, but in a retirement community I suspect that most people are going to be cashing out of previous homes for which they've fully paid down the mortgage.
What about police guards at G8 protests, certain sporting events? Surely by turning up they are assuming guilt. Never mind that there is a 100% occurrence of violent incidents and they would be derelict in duty by staying home... What about bobbies on the beat in rough neighbourhoods where someone gets stabbed every week? Are they being offensively oppresive? Stop being so asinine.
Precrime much?
You've just rationalized any amount of government interference because there is always a chance that something will go wrong.
And don't even try to backpedal because you just called a man assinine for complaining that under the proposed system "anyone could be a suspect."
I would appreciate it if my kid's school would tell me what he was eating or if he was eating.
Never gonna happen. At best they can tell you what food he had on his tray when they charged him for the meal.
You try to do anything with that information - like yell at him for not eating the right food and all you'll accomplish is to train him how to game the system.
"We're making sure that as they're leaving the lunch line that the menu items they've selected match up with state law, so they're selecting a meal that has all the basic [components] of good nutrition," said school district spokesman Jarrett Peterson. "We're not tracking what each individual child eats."
If that were true they would not need a PIN, just a pass/fail for whatever is on their tray. Pass you get to go and eat, fail you get back in line and get your vegetables.
When I was in public school we didn't even have a choice - everybody's meal was exactly the same. Other than outliers with food allergies, why aren't they doing that? No need for any of this technology crap (which, I'd be surprised if it weren't a sweet-heart corporate socialism deal for some company that is owned by a member of the school board) and they probably save money by streamlining preparation and purchasing too.