A director is free to add motion blur to his picture in post, if it's for 'artistic reasons' you can do whatever you want.

Just don't go and tell me that the blurryness in the fight scenes of 'the dark knight' where an artistic statement...

yes, no shitty 4 dollar 'picture processor' in a TV is ever going to really improve the picture. We're not talking about some trick to improve framerates here though. We're talking about a film that is actually shot at 48 frames per second, which as you point out look fantastic. I was not making the argument that higher fps == better viewing.

Anyone who values picture quality turns off their TV's 'frame enhancement' software anyway, right?

right? :)

That is a terrible misconception, it will be 'awful and distracting' only because you got used to films looking like films at 24fps and 'home video' having smoother motion. That's the thing though, 'home video' has had a quality advantage over 'cinema' in the smoothness department for a long time, it is sad that this increase in quality has become synonymous with poor films and videos. Maybe more ironic than sad.

All the other benefits of cinema will remain, higher picture quality, bigger screens, popcorn, but now with the added benefit of having natural looking motion. I don't see how that can possibly be a bad thing. I've been waiting for this 'breakthrough' for a LONG time, and I'm sure that most people will agree that it's an improvement.

Use mine every day, couldn't be happier. Looking to upgrade to an n950 actually, if I can get one. N9 otherwise.

That's not actually a big surprise is it? All these religious people preaching the love of their deity are all scared, really, really scared. That's the problem. They can't listen to other arguments and risk going to incarnation of a less pleasant afterlife, hell, or whatever other things they might believe in.

Religion is about instilling fear and shame in it's followers and this is just another example of what effects it has.

look here the 'cyberbunker.com' guys are not the actual guys who own and operate the actual physical building that they have named the cyberbunker. Cyberbunker.com just rents some space from cb3rob which actually owns the building (and has it's own hosting company/network business)

It is confusing, I agree and perhaps it was done on purpose but I know for a fact that the guys running cyberbunker.com are actually different people.

let's not forget their abuse policy

Abuse:
  This includes but is not limited to:
          * Any criminal activities, as defined by the law of:
                      o Customer's country of residence (natural persons) or company registration,
          * Mass sending of unsollicted e-mail (SPAM).
          * Sending floods of any kind to any other computer system or network which inhibits the correct behaviour of said computer system or network.
          * Harrassment of individuals.
          * Endangering the quality of service or network stability for other internet users in any way.

They will keep customers online unless the law tells them to take them offline.

Weren't we all outraged when the 'three strikes and your out' laws basically meant that three COMPLAINTS means someone could lose their Internet access without appeal, and without a trial?

But if spamhaus does it it's fine? Really?

Read spamhaus's own writeup on the matter.

When A2B refused to remove cyberbunker from the Internet entirely they indeed added just the one /21 on the SBL. This was not a network that was routed to the cyberbunker and just 'one of their networks' a range that had nothing to do with the case at all... I think the sentiment was quite clear.

The 'blackmail' in this case is 'We will keep all of A2B on the SBL unless you disconnect one of your paying customers from the Internet entirely'

They don't care that A2B doesn't send SPAM they just really dislike the cyberbunker and are abusing the power of their SBL to try and remove entities that they don't like from the Internet entirely.

Note that the cyberbunker will remove spammers, their ToS:

  This includes but is not limited to:
          * Any criminal activities, as defined by the law of:
                      o Customer's country of residence (natural persons) or company registration,
          * Mass sending of unsollicted e-mail (SPAM).
          * Sending floods of any kind to any other computer system or network which inhibits the correct behaviour of said computer system or network.
          * Harrassment of individuals.
          * Endangering the quality of service or network stability for other internet users in any way.

It's just that if spamhaus says that someone is doing 'something illegal' without specifying what it is, the cyberbunker isn't just going to disconnect them. Spamhaus *really* dislikes it when an ISP doesn't blindly follow their 'opinions' and most ISPs do because if they don't they get blackmailed like Cyberbunker was before and A2B is now.

But if this opinion is automatically taken as fact by 2/3rds of the Internet's email servers and you go to an ISP and say: "We want you to remove this and this customer from the Internet or we will be of the opinion that all your outgoing email is unwanted SPAM." the this kind of changes the picture.

This isn't about some SBL, Spamhaus is not taking anything less than Complete removal from the Internet for CB3ROB I think that this goes slightly further than an 'opinion'

Where are the spam lawsuits against the Cyberbunker, A2B or the spammer in question?

There aren't any, this is spamhaus acting as judge, jury and executioner. This isn't merely about a spam blocklist anymore, this is spamhaus trying to make all of the cyberbunker's IP space unroutable by using blackmail tactics against A2B.

"That's SMTP of all your paying customers, would be a shame if something were to happen to it..."

That is all nice and good, until they start pressuring upstream providers to STOP ROUTING, this is not about being on some spamlist but about removing a datacenter/ISP from the internet entirely.

They use the pull they have by being used by 2/3rds of the internet's email servers to blackmail ISPs to comply.

I do not send spam emails, I never have once in my life. Yet I cannot get my netblock removed from spamhaus RBL because they don't like my ISP.

Also, I *know* that spamhaus has taken money from other parties, ISPs, to make sure that this type of 'escalation' would never happen to them. This will be presented during the court case in Holland.

I rent a server and a /29 in the cyberbunker, as far as I'm concerned spamhaus is trying to strongarm my my upstream providers upstream provider. I had nothing to do with any of this, but I stand to lose my ip range and services THAT I PAID FOR.

It's NOT reasonable from spamhaus to expect an entire ISP to be blackholed for ONE spam complaint 2 levels below.

Maybe but in my case it was never resolved, as you can see spamhaus is now trying to cut *ME* off of the internet entirely.

They are trying to get upstream to cut off the cyberbunker entirely, that is blackmail. And by cutting off the cyberbunker my IP range becomes entirely unroutabe, this leaves me in a rather precarious situation.