Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!
We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).
It's pretty easy. Use disk utility in osx to partition the drive. Use a linux disc or unetbootin to make a bootable usb installer from an linux image file.
I like to use refind to select OS on boot.
The first time I saw the picture I could swear it was white / gold. I could see a slight blue hue to the white part but it was more or less white with gold.
After I read another article and saw the dress in a catalogue I read the first article again and it appeared blue / black. I couldn't believe it appeared so differently and had to check I was reading the same article with the same photo again.
The smoking gun scientists look for is a rise in the ratio of positrons to electrons, followed by a dramatic fall
Enquiring minds should read the summary
The point I was highlighting in regards to the theoretical put forward is that they won't (can't) if there's an option that adds more value to their organization.
I wonder if the broadcasters could let the content providers break the contract, in exchange for some agreement. Or if they can sub-license the rights back to Netflix, and profit as a middleman.
It would need to be a profitable arrangement for all involved; these are publicly listed companies and they're legally required to act in the best interest of their shareholders.
With a three way split on profits (middleman situation) it's unlikely that it would be possible for all three organizations to get the best deal for their shareholders: someone is going to be paying more or selling for less than they ideally would like to.
In order to sell the rights the seller would have sell them at greater than the profit forecasted to be returned by their ownership of those rights which would be unlikely to provide any value to the purchaser, meaning that they wouldn't be acting in the best interest of their shareholders.
Both of these would also need to be expressly permitted by the content provider as well, adding another layer of legal expenses.
"Licensing issues" seems to be the standard reply. But, why would licensing in Australia be different from licensing elsewhere? Isn't a show streamed to Australia is just as profitable as a show streamed to Europe or America?
It isn't necessarily less profitable per capita. The licencing issue is that existing distributors have contracts with overseas production firms preventing other distributors from supplying the same material.
The situation isn't completely different in the USA - if you look at the selection of TV shows available to US Netflix subscribers compared to what's available to Latin American Netflix subscribers there's a surprisingly larger selection for Latin America.
You only need a smart dns service.
Seriously though, if your local product can't compare to the cost of a Netflix subscription PLUS a smart dns / VPN subscription you're doing it wrong.
Why is Netflix not available in Australia?
A combination of licencing arrangements with existing distributors and the fact that the market size makes for a not so attractive business opportunity.
- so every second line consists of pixels from previous frames, but those are still pixels that are not the same as the ones in the current frame, the output has all of the 1920x1080 pixels in it, it's not like 2 lines of pixels are just 1 line stretched vertically. Technically Sony should win this.
That makes it 1080i, not 1080p. If Sony's advertising this as 1080p technically they should lose. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...