Ummmm. I get that for NZL$60 here (well 15gb), with free unmetered off-peak data (1am-7am; which is a pirates wet dream here) on ADSL 2. I also live like 3 houses from the exchange so I get about 11Mbps down. It would cost only NZL$50 if I didn't pay for the 1Mb upstream.
Section 92A would probably have hit my ISP hard though. They are not exactly great service (in fact they usually win worst service award), but they live on the fact that they give unlimited bandwidth to the pirates.
Also trying to compare apples with apples NZL$50 is only US$28.50. So it's not as bad as you make it sound.
Let's make them cartoons depicting gruesome murders -- but note that as with the kiddie porn, no actual person is harmed. Or at the other end of the scale -- cartoons depicting someone smoking pot, even tho no actual marijuana was grown, harvested, or smoked.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT??
Under a worst-case interpretation, a cartoon depiction or written description of a crime becomes legally the same as doing the crime itself, and subject to the same penalty as the real thing.
Under worst-case enforcement, that would pretty much empty most libraries, just for starters.
I don't have time to wade through and wrap my brain around all the legalese in the decision, but I do know we definitely do NOT want to go down the road of enforcing real penalties against fantasy depictions of crimes, regardless of what that crime may be.
I would want to go and hide my copies of Grand Theft Auto.
Looking around it seems to be that. About half the video files are copyright restricted.
I know it falls under different copyright laws, but the files I am attempted to watch on the website I have viewed on New Zealands version of MTV.
Damn having broadcast rights, but not streaming rights.
I was thinking this was going to be really cool. If it was of a higher resolution than youtube, and all neatly organized it would be awesome.
However It gets major negative points from me, as on the three video files I tried all i got was a "Copyrights prevent us from playing this file outside the U.S."
Back to youtube for me.
The calculator wont let me work out how long it would take to crack. When you don't type your password all your time, why would you only use a password up to 20 characters.
Seeing as my password uses the full 63 characters, and has all the tick boxes ticked I'm not worried quite yet.
Be interested to know how many video's uploaded to youtube are mono and how many are stereo. If there isn't a big proportion of stereo, it really wouldn't be worth doing.
For example all the video's I upload to youtube are 640x480, and mono. They are made on my digital still camera. Youtube can upgrade the video resolution from 320x240 to 640x480 (which most cameras nowaday record to; by default). But if they try and make it stereo sound it won't make any difference.
I really don't know how many are in mono compared to stereo, but I would be interested to find out.
But that's should just be Gnome telling the kernel to temporarily turn off power management well a certain application is doing a certain task wouldn't it. Reading through the comments, that's how I've picked up it works, (and how I assumed), is GNOME talks to the kernel, to tell it when to use and when not to use power management. But it isn't controlled by GNOME, GNOME just gives the kernel some parameters to use power management by.
Gnome 2.20 has better power management? I never thought that was the job of the desktop environment. I thought it was just to supply some form of UI for the user. I understand that GNOME would have to give some details, to either the kernel, or some module about user activity, and the like but wouldn't think the the desktop environment just dealt with power management itself.
Can someone clue me into how this works?
So your saying that people should just accept that their new HD drive will only play the very small selection of movies out now? Of course the majority of users will have to upgrade. The only reason I see for not upgrading would be if you just use your BluRay/HD-DVD drive just as data disks, but then you likely wouldn't have WinDVD installed.
I half agree with this comment. It's all about setting a price for the good you are recieving. VHS's drastically dropped in price because you could get far better sound/video quality on DVD, with a whole lot of extra's. (and we were promised that dvd would have a longer life than vhs, but I am really yet to see that)
DVD gave you more bang for your buck, and for that extra bang, you have to pay more. There is definatly still a market for the VHS, for people who just want to see the video, and don't really want the extras and have the superior video/sound quality, and because they dont want this they get the film at a highly discounted rate.
I believe thats why being able to legally download a tv-show for a $1 an episode won't kill the dvd industry because a video clip on your computer, is a whole lot different to having a brand spanking new dvd in your hand to watch in your personal home theatre with 5.1 sound and amazing picture quality.
I also believe that it might fuel DVD sales. I believe this because if it only costs say $1 per show then people might be a bit more adventerous and buy shows which they wouldn't just go buy the dvd of. And if they like these shows, they would like to get all the extra stuff that the dvd gives, and hence go out and buy the dvd.
Slashdot Mirror
Ummmm. I get that for NZL$60 here (well 15gb), with free unmetered off-peak data (1am-7am; which is a pirates wet dream here) on ADSL 2. I also live like 3 houses from the exchange so I get about 11Mbps down. It would cost only NZL$50 if I didn't pay for the 1Mb upstream.
Section 92A would probably have hit my ISP hard though. They are not exactly great service (in fact they usually win worst service award), but they live on the fact that they give unlimited bandwidth to the pirates.
Also trying to compare apples with apples NZL$50 is only US$28.50. So it's not as bad as you make it sound.
Let's change the scenario slightly.
Let's make them cartoons depicting gruesome murders -- but note that as with the kiddie porn, no actual person is harmed. Or at the other end of the scale -- cartoons depicting someone smoking pot, even tho no actual marijuana was grown, harvested, or smoked.
HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT??
Under a worst-case interpretation, a cartoon depiction or written description of a crime becomes legally the same as doing the crime itself, and subject to the same penalty as the real thing.
Under worst-case enforcement, that would pretty much empty most libraries, just for starters.
I don't have time to wade through and wrap my brain around all the legalese in the decision, but I do know we definitely do NOT want to go down the road of enforcing real penalties against fantasy depictions of crimes, regardless of what that crime may be.
I would want to go and hide my copies of Grand Theft Auto.
Librarything will sell you a USB cuecat for $15.
You would be able to find one cheaper. However this is a guaranteed new one, and bets scouring the net for a cheaper one.
Looking around it seems to be that. About half the video files are copyright restricted. I know it falls under different copyright laws, but the files I am attempted to watch on the website I have viewed on New Zealands version of MTV. Damn having broadcast rights, but not streaming rights.
I was thinking this was going to be really cool. If it was of a higher resolution than youtube, and all neatly organized it would be awesome. However It gets major negative points from me, as on the three video files I tried all i got was a "Copyrights prevent us from playing this file outside the U.S." Back to youtube for me.
The calculator wont let me work out how long it would take to crack. When you don't type your password all your time, why would you only use a password up to 20 characters. Seeing as my password uses the full 63 characters, and has all the tick boxes ticked I'm not worried quite yet.
Be interested to know how many video's uploaded to youtube are mono and how many are stereo. If there isn't a big proportion of stereo, it really wouldn't be worth doing. For example all the video's I upload to youtube are 640x480, and mono. They are made on my digital still camera. Youtube can upgrade the video resolution from 320x240 to 640x480 (which most cameras nowaday record to; by default). But if they try and make it stereo sound it won't make any difference. I really don't know how many are in mono compared to stereo, but I would be interested to find out.
But that's should just be Gnome telling the kernel to temporarily turn off power management well a certain application is doing a certain task wouldn't it. Reading through the comments, that's how I've picked up it works, (and how I assumed), is GNOME talks to the kernel, to tell it when to use and when not to use power management. But it isn't controlled by GNOME, GNOME just gives the kernel some parameters to use power management by.
Gnome 2.20 has better power management? I never thought that was the job of the desktop environment. I thought it was just to supply some form of UI for the user. I understand that GNOME would have to give some details, to either the kernel, or some module about user activity, and the like but wouldn't think the the desktop environment just dealt with power management itself. Can someone clue me into how this works?
So your saying that people should just accept that their new HD drive will only play the very small selection of movies out now? Of course the majority of users will have to upgrade. The only reason I see for not upgrading would be if you just use your BluRay/HD-DVD drive just as data disks, but then you likely wouldn't have WinDVD installed.
DVD gave you more bang for your buck, and for that extra bang, you have to pay more. There is definatly still a market for the VHS, for people who just want to see the video, and don't really want the extras and have the superior video/sound quality, and because they dont want this they get the film at a highly discounted rate.
I believe thats why being able to legally download a tv-show for a $1 an episode won't kill the dvd industry because a video clip on your computer, is a whole lot different to having a brand spanking new dvd in your hand to watch in your personal home theatre with 5.1 sound and amazing picture quality.
I also believe that it might fuel DVD sales. I believe this because if it only costs say $1 per show then people might be a bit more adventerous and buy shows which they wouldn't just go buy the dvd of. And if they like these shows, they would like to get all the extra stuff that the dvd gives, and hence go out and buy the dvd.