I guess you haven't seen the 720p or 1080p x264 (H.264/AVC - same codec that many of the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray movies are using) rips on private bittorrent trackers or Usenet. A standard two hour movie will fit on a DVD5 at 720p with 6 channel AC3 audio and a bitrate of 4.5-6 mbit/sec. While this wouldn't look great using xvid, H.264/AVC High profile can create great quality. x264 using Sharktooth's HQ-Slowest profile is very impressive. A 2 hour movie can fit on a DVD9 at 1080p at 7-8 mbit/sec, again with very good quality.
Hell, I've seen some 2 CD sized x264 rips from 1080p sources that blow DVD out of the water. Forget about the MPEG-4 ASP codecs like Xvid and Divx. Now that we have H.264/AVC, we can achieve excellent results at 720p and 1080p down to DVD5/9 sizes.
I have to disagree with your comment. I find that it's much easier to find high quality TV and movie content illegally than legally. For example, iTunes offers episodes for $2 a piece in a relatively poor quality fullscreen version. Compare that the private trackers which focus on TV content. The one I use typically provides at least two versions, a widescreen "HDTV" version with a resolution of around 624x352 at 350 MB which has become the standard, and a higher quality "HR" version with a resolution of 960x528. The standard HDTV release exceeds the quality of iTunes offerings and the HR release far exceeds iTunes quality, and even DVD quality. For new, popular shows, there's also a third option, a High Definition 720p release (1280x720) in the x264 codec at 1.07 GB.
The same goes for movies. Private trackers offer larger selections than pay sites. They offer higher quality in the form of ISO rips using high quality MPEG-2 re-encodes so the ISO can be burned to a cheap single layer DVD. Often this is the only way to get rare movies online.
Advantages of Private Torrent Trackers: - Free - Content is available within an hour or a few hours of airing. - Shows can be automatically downloaded using RSS feeds - Multiple quality options, including a true High Definition version. - All in true Widescreen format - Larger selection (Nearly every semi-popular or popular American show that has aired, in DVD Rip, HDTV source, or ISO form). - The ability to download season packs or Complete Series (i.e X-Files 9 seasons in one torrent) - Extremely fast downloads. I can easily download at speeds of 10-20 mbit/sec on well seeded torrents. Average speeds of 6-8 mbit/sec.
While in most areas, a company may not care about the 1.6% of the market that Linux represents, there are certain segments of the hardware market that owe their marketshare to Linux users to a much greater extent. For example, I am looking into upgrading my HTPC to record HDTV content via Cable (QAM). While many cards can do this on hardware, and even have support with (crappy) included software, none of the major Windows HTPC HTPC software supports recording HDTV signals via QAM. They exclusively support OTA signals. This includes Windows Media Center Edition, SageTV, and BeyondTV. What's the only full-featured HTPC software to support QAM HDTV recording...MythTV? It's also probably the best HTPC software available, and it runs essentially exclusively on Linux (They're working on OS X support).
The market for cards that can record HDTV content makes up a pretty small market, and I'm pretty sure Linux users make up a substantial percentage of the market. First, they're much more likely to purchase more than one card. I currently have 2 TV cards (a software bttv card, and a Hauppauge PVR-250 with hardware MPEG-2 encoder), and I'm planning to add an HDTV card. I am only looking at cards which have full Linux support. And I know many users who have 2 or more HDTV cards, and are considering adding more. Linux users are also more likely to reward companies for using high-quality parts and for providing support for features that we want (like working QAM on the frequencies that the channels are on! Some of the first HDTV cards supported QAM, but couldn't tune to the frequencies of the channels).
When you're selling a product that's not targeted at the mass market, then Linux users probably do matter. People aren't picking up HDTV cards in Best Buy, and they're not likely to in the future.
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the link is to Google Video, and not Youtube. I saw a similar story several days ago on Digg (at that point, it was just a threat to Youtube to take down the video- or else). Even then, nobody linked to the Youtube video. Doesn't this show how ridiculous a ban of Youtube would be? The video is on at least 3 major video sharing sites, and I'm sure as this story picks up, it is going to spread to p2p networks. What exactly was the point of the lawsuit? If anything, this tactic only ensures MORE people will see it.
By the way, does anyone actually have the Youtube link?
This time I entered the full URL [http://zeta-os.com/astats/bankofamerica/online_bo fa_banking/e-online-banking/index.htm], and I did receive the warning message. However, the page that loaded was a harmless 404 Not Found page.
Google only blocklisted that particular URL what pointed to "bankofamerica/online_bofa_banking/e-online-bankin g/index.htm", so it should have no affect on legitimate usage of the site. Anyways, I can't see a legitimate reason why a site dedicated to software development would have "bankofamerica" and "online..banking" in its URL. Can you?
Maybe zeta-os.com was hacked, and was inadvertantly hosting a phishing site. Google blocked the specific URL, but allowed the rest of the site to be accessed. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I just loaded http://zeta-os.com/astats/bankofamerica/ on Firefox 2.0.0.1 using Firefox's built-in phishing detector using Google to provide the blacklist ["Check by asking Google about each site I visit" option]. It loaded the site just fine, without any warning.
Actually, their "DVD Quality" videos are 2500 kbit/sec which is very high. A DVDRip to two CDs (1400 MB) is usually 1200-1300 kbit/sec. A 2 hour movie at 2500 kbit/sec will be 2.2 GB.
Bluray and HD-DVD both support MPEG-2, Microsoft's VC1 codec, and H.264. Currently, most released HD-DVD movies were encoded in VC1 and most if not all Bluray titles were encoded in MPEG-2. This doesn't mean that one or both will begin using H.264 in the future, which is clearly the superior format in terms of quality. As both formats support all three formats, I don't see why you believe that HD-DVD is tied to VC1?
What I can't understand is why in the hell Bluray movies are being encoded in MPEG-2. They're currently using single layer 25 GB disks because the technology to mass produce dual-layer disks just isn't operational yet. With this limited amount of space (for HD content) it makes no sense to use a bitrate hungry format like MPEG-2. They would be far better off using H.264 of VC1. The use of VC1 and the 5 GB space advantage has given HD-DVD the edge in video quality. Numerous reviews have stated that HD-DVD movies are incredible in detail and clarity while Bluray is generally disappointing.
This is correct. From my own experience backing up the movies I've purchased, most dual-layer disks only use 5-6 GB for the actual movie, if that. You generally can get away with 15-25% compression after removing the extras, trailers, useless warnings and other crap. Oh, and btw, DVDShrink doesn't actually remove this crap. It just replaces each frame with one of your choice. CloneDVD2, Vobblanker, and DVD Remake on the other hand will allow you to save even more space by actually removing the crap and replacing them with a single black frame. I prefer to play my backup copies, because after removing the trailers, warnings, and studio logos that start up before the menu on standard DVDs as well as the protected user operations, region coding and other annoyances, I find I have a more enjoyable experience and less need to sit through crap.
Anyways, I can verify the truth of the parent's comment as to Disney DVDs. "Finding Nemo" took up about 7.5 GB on its dual-layer pressed DVD, however, after removing extras, warnings, trailers, and 30 MINUTES OF BLACK FRAMES, I got it down to 4.3 GB, small enough to fit onto a DVD-R without any compression. The blank frames took up nearly 1 GB of space! I've also ran into this annoying issue on other films. Rather than add the blank frames as extras, the studio embeds them in the menu structure, so most dvd backup won't touch it. DVDShrink will allow you to selectively remove these titles but very few people would know to check. I can see no other reason for 30 minutes of black frames other than an attempt to thwart copying (and a futile attempt at that).
CleanFlicks lost not because they made a "backup copy" of the original copyrighted work but rather because they manipulated the copyrighted work to edit out "offensive content" without the permission of the copyright holder. This is legal in certain exceptional cases such as parodying a copyrighted work, but in this case, it was a clear violation of copyright law. Cleanflicks sold a modified version of a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyrighted holder, and their main purpose was commercial and not artistic, political etc.
The legal argument against CleanFlicks and the resulting decision in favor of the movie industry focused more on the right of a artistic creator to see his/her work presented in its intended form, without manipulation by 3rd parties, and NOT an attack on the illegal distribution of movies.
Here are some pertinent quotes from the Defendant:
"Directors put their skill, craft and often years of hard work into the creation of a film," added Apted, whose own repertoire includes the 1999 James Bond adventure The World Is Not Enough and Gorillas in the Mist. "These films carry our name and reflect our reputations. So we have great passion about protecting our work...against unauthorized editing."
And from the case itself:
""[Moviemakers'] objective...is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection. Their business is illegitimate."
The service that Circuit City is providing is not analogous to that of Cleanflicks. They're not selling a modified version of the movie, nor are they selling ANYTHING. Instead, they're charging for the SERVICE of ripping a movie into a format that's capable of being played in a mobile player. Because they are circumventing CSS, they are breaking the DMCA. Therefore, Circuit City is breaking the law, but for different reasons than that of decision in the Cleanflicks case.
I have always been amazed at how few tracks are actually on the Pop CDs my sister purchases. An average pop album has 12-14 tracks and is 45-50 minutes in length. In contrast, an average classical CD has 20-25 tracks and has 55-80 minutes of music. I have many CDs that have 79+ minutes of music. They literally fill them to the brink. This is why the average classical CD costs significantly more on allofmp3.com than nearly any other type of music CD. The Music industry is not restricted by the capacity of CDs and there really is no technological reason to move to a DVD based system when most consumers are perfectly happy with their 128-192 kbit/sec MP3s. SACD and DVD-Audio were targeted at Audiophiles and therefore failed to gain traction with a larger audience. Warner's scheme provides nothing new for the consumer and isn't compatible with standard CD players. I don't see the purpose of this "new technology".
Oh, and if you want to get $5 CDs, just check out your local used CD store. I mainly listen to classical music and pick up albums used from the Princeton Record Exchange, a massive used CD/DVD store with a collection of about 160,000 CDs [http://www.prex.com/] for $3-5 each. The best part is that the store allows you to preview most of the CDs under $5. It's a great way to create a more eclectic music collection.
What exactly do they mean by HD.264? I assume they are talking about a video encoded using an H.264 codec at HD resolution. However, if the movie is encoded at true HD (at least 720p), how the hell is the an iPod going to be able to decode the video? Apple recommends a 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 PC with 512 MB of RAM and a 64 MB video card or a 1.8 Ghz G5/1.83 Ghz Intel Core Duo Mac. While the Quicktime player is horribly unoptimized for Windows (VLC will play H.264 on much lower specs) I just don't see how they are planning to add H.264 support without a major increase in price to this device. The Toshiba HD-DVD player retails for $500 and the parts alone cost over $700. I believe most of the cost is associated with the processing power needed to decode H.264 and VC1 at 1080p with is part of the HD-DVD/Bluray spec.
It takes some serious processing power to decode 720p H.264 video which would seem to be overkill when playing on a screen that can't even display full HD resolution. I doubt small screen will have a 1280x720 resolution. So, can we get some real specs on this device?
Laptops also have considerably slower hard drives with slower access times. Many of the higher capacity laptop drives (100-120 GB) are also 4200 RPM which pales in comparison to the standard 7200 RPM of desktop drives with much larger capacities. 5400 RPM laptop drives are quite a bit more expensive than 4200 RPM drives, and that means most entry level and midrange laptops are going to use slow drives.
"Oh, and no exploit on any non-Windows system has ever allowed an attacker to get administrator access by looking in a fracking picture like one MS exploit did."
...Someone has been watching too much Battlestar Galactica.
Perhaps the submitter doesn't have Flash installed or is using an extension like noscript or flashblock. When I loaded the site with noscript enabled, I saw only a blank page. I had to allow the site before it displayed properly. Yet, I would hope the submitter would be intelligent enough to know the difference between a page that doesn't load properly in Firefox and one that simply needs the Flash plugin or JavaScript support (in the case of noscript users).
Is Skype secure?
Yes. When you call another Skype user your call is encrypted with strong encryption algorithms ensuring you privacy. In some cases your Skype communication may be routed via other users in the peer-to-peer network. Skype encryption protects you from potential eavesdropping from malicious users. Why are Skype calls encrypted?
Skype is encrypted end-to-end because it uses the public Internet to transport your voice calls and text messages and sometimes these calls are routed through other peers. Skype encryption ensures that no other party can eavesdrop on your call or read your instant messages. What type of encryption is used?
Skype uses AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) - also known as Rijndael - which is also used by U.S. Government organizations to protect sensitive, information. Skype uses 256-bit encryption, which has a total of 1.1 x 1077 possible keys, in order to actively encrypt the data in each Skype call or instant message. Skype uses 1024 bit RSA to negotiate symmetric AES keys. User public keys are certified by the Skype server at login using 1536 or 2048-bit RSA certificates.
The 720p trailers on Apple's site are anywhere from 5-7 mbit/sec. They average around 6 or 6.5 mbit/sec from my experience. They also have 5.1 surround sound in AAC format. At 6 mbit/sec (2.7 GB/hour) a 1.5 hour movie will be slightly over 4 GB and a 2 hour movie will be 6.75 GB.
However, even 480p H.264 trailers exceed DVD in detail and clarity- and that's at 2-2.5 mbit/sec. A 1:30 movie would be approximately 1.7 GB while a 2 hour movie would be 2.25 GB. At these sizes, downloading a movie in an hour or two is reasonable on most broadband connections.
What makes you believe that OS X Tiger will not run on a G3. Perhaps you should have spent the five seconds necessary to check Apple's site before making this assumption. Anyways, I have posted the requirements for OS X Tiger below:
Make sure your hardware can run Mac OS X Version 10.4 Tiger
Mac OS X Version 10.4 requires a Macintosh with:
* PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
* Built-in FireWire
* At least 256MB of physical RAM
* A built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card supported by your computer
* At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
* DVD drive for installation
I didn't say that men don't have child rearing responsibilities. I simply stated that their societally accepted responsibilities to their children are not equal. Women who have children are expected by many, even today, to stay home and care for their children. If they don't, they are seen as poor parents. Perhaps women should simply ignore society's demands and do what she wants, but this isn't always so easy. These views can hurt women in the workplace.
No such stigma applies to men. Even the way we describe men and women professionals is different. We don't refer to male professionals with children as "working fathers", nor do we say that they are "juggling their profession and their work". A male professional's family life is largely seen as irrelevant to his work. A woman professional with children on the other hand is often referred to as a "working mother" implying that she has the dual responsibility of child reering and work. Does the father have some responsibility to care for his kids? Absolutely. Is his responsibility equal? No. When both spouses want to pursue a career, the mother is often expected to sacrafice her career because she made the choice to have kids. Once this choice is made, there is some expectation that she be the one to sacrafice. I wish more men wouldn't think this way, and that society wouldn't look down upon men that stay home with their children, but we can't ignore the reality of today.
Slashdot Mirror
I guess you haven't seen the 720p or 1080p x264 (H.264/AVC - same codec that many of the HD-DVD/Blu-Ray movies are using) rips on private bittorrent trackers or Usenet. A standard two hour movie will fit on a DVD5 at 720p with 6 channel AC3 audio and a bitrate of 4.5-6 mbit/sec. While this wouldn't look great using xvid, H.264/AVC High profile can create great quality. x264 using Sharktooth's HQ-Slowest profile is very impressive. A 2 hour movie can fit on a DVD9 at 1080p at 7-8 mbit/sec, again with very good quality.
Hell, I've seen some 2 CD sized x264 rips from 1080p sources that blow DVD out of the water. Forget about the MPEG-4 ASP codecs like Xvid and Divx. Now that we have H.264/AVC, we can achieve excellent results at 720p and 1080p down to DVD5/9 sizes.
I have to disagree with your comment. I find that it's much easier to find high quality TV and movie content illegally than legally. For example, iTunes offers episodes for $2 a piece in a relatively poor quality fullscreen version. Compare that the private trackers which focus on TV content. The one I use typically provides at least two versions, a widescreen "HDTV" version with a resolution of around 624x352 at 350 MB which has become the standard, and a higher quality "HR" version with a resolution of 960x528. The standard HDTV release exceeds the quality of iTunes offerings and the HR release far exceeds iTunes quality, and even DVD quality. For new, popular shows, there's also a third option, a High Definition 720p release (1280x720) in the x264 codec at 1.07 GB.
The same goes for movies. Private trackers offer larger selections than pay sites. They offer higher quality in the form of ISO rips using high quality MPEG-2 re-encodes so the ISO can be burned to a cheap single layer DVD. Often this is the only way to get rare movies online.
Advantages of Private Torrent Trackers:
- Free
- Content is available within an hour or a few hours of airing.
- Shows can be automatically downloaded using RSS feeds
- Multiple quality options, including a true High Definition version.
- All in true Widescreen format
- Larger selection (Nearly every semi-popular or popular American show that has aired, in DVD Rip, HDTV source, or ISO form).
- The ability to download season packs or Complete Series (i.e X-Files 9 seasons in one torrent)
- Extremely fast downloads. I can easily download at speeds of 10-20 mbit/sec on well seeded torrents. Average speeds of 6-8 mbit/sec.
While in most areas, a company may not care about the 1.6% of the market that Linux represents, there are certain segments of the hardware market that owe their marketshare to Linux users to a much greater extent. For example, I am looking into upgrading my HTPC to record HDTV content via Cable (QAM). While many cards can do this on hardware, and even have support with (crappy) included software, none of the major Windows HTPC HTPC software supports recording HDTV signals via QAM. They exclusively support OTA signals. This includes Windows Media Center Edition, SageTV, and BeyondTV. What's the only full-featured HTPC software to support QAM HDTV recording...MythTV? It's also probably the best HTPC software available, and it runs essentially exclusively on Linux (They're working on OS X support).
The market for cards that can record HDTV content makes up a pretty small market, and I'm pretty sure Linux users make up a substantial percentage of the market. First, they're much more likely to purchase more than one card. I currently have 2 TV cards (a software bttv card, and a Hauppauge PVR-250 with hardware MPEG-2 encoder), and I'm planning to add an HDTV card. I am only looking at cards which have full Linux support. And I know many users who have 2 or more HDTV cards, and are considering adding more. Linux users are also more likely to reward companies for using high-quality parts and for providing support for features that we want (like working QAM on the frequencies that the channels are on! Some of the first HDTV cards supported QAM, but couldn't tune to the frequencies of the channels).
When you're selling a product that's not targeted at the mass market, then Linux users probably do matter. People aren't picking up HDTV cards in Best Buy, and they're not likely to in the future.
Am I the only one that finds it ironic that the link is to Google Video, and not Youtube. I saw a similar story several days ago on Digg (at that point, it was just a threat to Youtube to take down the video- or else). Even then, nobody linked to the Youtube video. Doesn't this show how ridiculous a ban of Youtube would be? The video is on at least 3 major video sharing sites, and I'm sure as this story picks up, it is going to spread to p2p networks. What exactly was the point of the lawsuit? If anything, this tactic only ensures MORE people will see it.
By the way, does anyone actually have the Youtube link?
This time I entered the full URL [http://zeta-os.com/astats/bankofamerica/online_bo fa_banking/e-online-banking/index.htm], and I did receive the warning message. However, the page that loaded was a harmless 404 Not Found page.
n g/index.htm", so it should have no affect on legitimate usage of the site. Anyways, I can't see a legitimate reason why a site dedicated to software development would have "bankofamerica" and "online..banking" in its URL. Can you?
Google only blocklisted that particular URL what pointed to "bankofamerica/online_bofa_banking/e-online-banki
Maybe zeta-os.com was hacked, and was inadvertantly hosting a phishing site. Google blocked the specific URL, but allowed the rest of the site to be accessed. That seems perfectly reasonable to me.
I just loaded http://zeta-os.com/astats/bankofamerica/ on Firefox 2.0.0.1 using Firefox's built-in phishing detector using Google to provide the blacklist ["Check by asking Google about each site I visit" option]. It loaded the site just fine, without any warning.
Perhaps I'm the only one that noticed, but I'm quite sure the parent was being sarcastic.
Actually, their "DVD Quality" videos are 2500 kbit/sec which is very high. A DVDRip to two CDs (1400 MB) is usually 1200-1300 kbit/sec. A 2 hour movie at 2500 kbit/sec will be 2.2 GB.
"1. Purchased a TV show, easy as click and click ...
What a piece of shit. No way I'll be using this in the future. But thanks for the free tv show (emphasis added)."
So, you purchased a "free" tv show?
Bluray and HD-DVD both support MPEG-2, Microsoft's VC1 codec, and H.264. Currently, most released HD-DVD movies were encoded in VC1 and most if not all Bluray titles were encoded in MPEG-2. This doesn't mean that one or both will begin using H.264 in the future, which is clearly the superior format in terms of quality. As both formats support all three formats, I don't see why you believe that HD-DVD is tied to VC1?
What I can't understand is why in the hell Bluray movies are being encoded in MPEG-2. They're currently using single layer 25 GB disks because the technology to mass produce dual-layer disks just isn't operational yet. With this limited amount of space (for HD content) it makes no sense to use a bitrate hungry format like MPEG-2. They would be far better off using H.264 of VC1. The use of VC1 and the 5 GB space advantage has given HD-DVD the edge in video quality. Numerous reviews have stated that HD-DVD movies are incredible in detail and clarity while Bluray is generally disappointing.
This is correct. From my own experience backing up the movies I've purchased, most dual-layer disks only use 5-6 GB for the actual movie, if that. You generally can get away with 15-25% compression after removing the extras, trailers, useless warnings and other crap. Oh, and btw, DVDShrink doesn't actually remove this crap. It just replaces each frame with one of your choice. CloneDVD2, Vobblanker, and DVD Remake on the other hand will allow you to save even more space by actually removing the crap and replacing them with a single black frame. I prefer to play my backup copies, because after removing the trailers, warnings, and studio logos that start up before the menu on standard DVDs as well as the protected user operations, region coding and other annoyances, I find I have a more enjoyable experience and less need to sit through crap.
Anyways, I can verify the truth of the parent's comment as to Disney DVDs. "Finding Nemo" took up about 7.5 GB on its dual-layer pressed DVD, however, after removing extras, warnings, trailers, and 30 MINUTES OF BLACK FRAMES, I got it down to 4.3 GB, small enough to fit onto a DVD-R without any compression. The blank frames took up nearly 1 GB of space! I've also ran into this annoying issue on other films. Rather than add the blank frames as extras, the studio embeds them in the menu structure, so most dvd backup won't touch it. DVDShrink will allow you to selectively remove these titles but very few people would know to check. I can see no other reason for 30 minutes of black frames other than an attempt to thwart copying (and a futile attempt at that).
Thank you for your post. It clarified my own understanding of the CleanFlicks case and was very informative.
CleanFlicks lost not because they made a "backup copy" of the original copyrighted work but rather because they manipulated the copyrighted work to edit out "offensive content" without the permission of the copyright holder. This is legal in certain exceptional cases such as parodying a copyrighted work, but in this case, it was a clear violation of copyright law. Cleanflicks sold a modified version of a copyrighted work without the consent of the copyrighted holder, and their main purpose was commercial and not artistic, political etc.
The legal argument against CleanFlicks and the resulting decision in favor of the movie industry focused more on the right of a artistic creator to see his/her work presented in its intended form, without manipulation by 3rd parties, and NOT an attack on the illegal distribution of movies.
Here are some pertinent quotes from the Defendant:
"Directors put their skill, craft and often years of hard work into the creation of a film," added Apted, whose own repertoire includes the 1999 James Bond adventure The World Is Not Enough and Gorillas in the Mist. "These films carry our name and reflect our reputations. So we have great passion about protecting our work...against unauthorized editing."
And from the case itself:
""[Moviemakers'] objective...is to stop the infringement because of its irreparable injury to the creative artistic expression in the copyrighted movies," the judge wrote. "There is a public interest in providing such protection. Their business is illegitimate."
The service that Circuit City is providing is not analogous to that of Cleanflicks. They're not selling a modified version of the movie, nor are they selling ANYTHING. Instead, they're charging for the SERVICE of ripping a movie into a format that's capable of being played in a mobile player. Because they are circumventing CSS, they are breaking the DMCA. Therefore, Circuit City is breaking the law, but for different reasons than that of decision in the Cleanflicks case.
I have always been amazed at how few tracks are actually on the Pop CDs my sister purchases. An average pop album has 12-14 tracks and is 45-50 minutes in length. In contrast, an average classical CD has 20-25 tracks and has 55-80 minutes of music. I have many CDs that have 79+ minutes of music. They literally fill them to the brink. This is why the average classical CD costs significantly more on allofmp3.com than nearly any other type of music CD. The Music industry is not restricted by the capacity of CDs and there really is no technological reason to move to a DVD based system when most consumers are perfectly happy with their 128-192 kbit/sec MP3s. SACD and DVD-Audio were targeted at Audiophiles and therefore failed to gain traction with a larger audience. Warner's scheme provides nothing new for the consumer and isn't compatible with standard CD players. I don't see the purpose of this "new technology".
Oh, and if you want to get $5 CDs, just check out your local used CD store. I mainly listen to classical music and pick up albums used from the Princeton Record Exchange, a massive used CD/DVD store with a collection of about 160,000 CDs [http://www.prex.com/] for $3-5 each. The best part is that the store allows you to preview most of the CDs under $5. It's a great way to create a more eclectic music collection.
What exactly do they mean by HD.264? I assume they are talking about a video encoded using an H.264 codec at HD resolution. However, if the movie is encoded at true HD (at least 720p), how the hell is the an iPod going to be able to decode the video? Apple recommends a 2.8 Ghz Pentium 4 PC with 512 MB of RAM and a 64 MB video card or a 1.8 Ghz G5/1.83 Ghz Intel Core Duo Mac. While the Quicktime player is horribly unoptimized for Windows (VLC will play H.264 on much lower specs) I just don't see how they are planning to add H.264 support without a major increase in price to this device. The Toshiba HD-DVD player retails for $500 and the parts alone cost over $700. I believe most of the cost is associated with the processing power needed to decode H.264 and VC1 at 1080p with is part of the HD-DVD/Bluray spec.
It takes some serious processing power to decode 720p H.264 video which would seem to be overkill when playing on a screen that can't even display full HD resolution. I doubt small screen will have a 1280x720 resolution. So, can we get some real specs on this device?
Laptops also have considerably slower hard drives with slower access times. Many of the higher capacity laptop drives (100-120 GB) are also 4200 RPM which pales in comparison to the standard 7200 RPM of desktop drives with much larger capacities. 5400 RPM laptop drives are quite a bit more expensive than 4200 RPM drives, and that means most entry level and midrange laptops are going to use slow drives.
"Oh, and no exploit on any non-Windows system has ever allowed an attacker to get administrator access by looking in a fracking picture like one MS exploit did."
...Someone has been watching too much Battlestar Galactica.
Very interesting synopsis of the arguments presented without BS. It's definitely worth a read.
Perhaps the submitter doesn't have Flash installed or is using an extension like noscript or flashblock. When I loaded the site with noscript enabled, I saw only a blank page. I had to allow the site before it displayed properly. Yet, I would hope the submitter would be intelligent enough to know the difference between a page that doesn't load properly in Firefox and one that simply needs the Flash plugin or JavaScript support (in the case of noscript users).
Actually, Skype is more secure. It uses 256 bit AES end-end encryption. See here for more details: http://blogs.zdnet.com/ip-telephony/index.php?p=91 9
From Skype's FAQ [LINK: http://www.skype.com/help/faq/privacy.html ]
http://www.skype.com/help/faq/privacy.html
Is Skype secure?
Yes. When you call another Skype user your call is encrypted with strong encryption algorithms ensuring you privacy. In some cases your Skype communication may be routed via other users in the peer-to-peer network. Skype encryption protects you from potential eavesdropping from malicious users.
Why are Skype calls encrypted?
Skype is encrypted end-to-end because it uses the public Internet to transport your voice calls and text messages and sometimes these calls are routed through other peers. Skype encryption ensures that no other party can eavesdrop on your call or read your instant messages.
What type of encryption is used?
Skype uses AES (Advanced Encryption Standard) - also known as Rijndael - which is also used by U.S. Government organizations to protect sensitive, information. Skype uses 256-bit encryption, which has a total of 1.1 x 1077 possible keys, in order to actively encrypt the data in each Skype call or instant message. Skype uses 1024 bit RSA to negotiate symmetric AES keys. User public keys are certified by the Skype server at login using 1536 or 2048-bit RSA certificates.
The 720p trailers on Apple's site are anywhere from 5-7 mbit/sec. They average around 6 or 6.5 mbit/sec from my experience. They also have 5.1 surround sound in AAC format. At 6 mbit/sec (2.7 GB/hour) a 1.5 hour movie will be slightly over 4 GB and a 2 hour movie will be 6.75 GB.
However, even 480p H.264 trailers exceed DVD in detail and clarity- and that's at 2-2.5 mbit/sec. A 1:30 movie would be approximately 1.7 GB while a 2 hour movie would be 2.25 GB. At these sizes, downloading a movie in an hour or two is reasonable on most broadband connections.
...And perhaps I should have proofread my own comments. The first line should end with a question mark rather than a period.
What makes you believe that OS X Tiger will not run on a G3. Perhaps you should have spent the five seconds necessary to check Apple's site before making this assumption. Anyways, I have posted the requirements for OS X Tiger below:
h tml
Make sure your hardware can run Mac OS X Version 10.4 Tiger
Mac OS X Version 10.4 requires a Macintosh with:
* PowerPC G3, G4, or G5 processor
* Built-in FireWire
* At least 256MB of physical RAM
* A built-in display or a display connected to an Apple-supplied video card supported by your computer
* At least 3.0 GB of available space on your hard drive; 4GB of disk space if you install XCode 2 developer tools
* DVD drive for installation
http://www.apple.com/macosx/upgrade/requirements.
Thanks for the citation. I'll be sure to check out the study myself. It's also nice to have at least some support in this argument.
Jason Wittlin-Cohen
I didn't say that men don't have child rearing responsibilities. I simply stated that their societally accepted responsibilities to their children are not equal. Women who have children are expected by many, even today, to stay home and care for their children. If they don't, they are seen as poor parents. Perhaps women should simply ignore society's demands and do what she wants, but this isn't always so easy. These views can hurt women in the workplace.
No such stigma applies to men. Even the way we describe men and women professionals is different. We don't refer to male professionals with children as "working fathers", nor do we say that they are "juggling their profession and their work". A male professional's family life is largely seen as irrelevant to his work. A woman professional with children on the other hand is often referred to as a "working mother" implying that she has the dual responsibility of child reering and work. Does the father have some responsibility to care for his kids? Absolutely. Is his responsibility equal? No. When both spouses want to pursue a career, the mother is often expected to sacrafice her career because she made the choice to have kids. Once this choice is made, there is some expectation that she be the one to sacrafice. I wish more men wouldn't think this way, and that society wouldn't look down upon men that stay home with their children, but we can't ignore the reality of today.
Jason Wittlin-Cohen