Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop


Forgot your password?
Check out the new SourceForge HTML5 internet speed test! No Flash necessary and runs on all devices. Also, Slashdot's Facebook page has a chat bot now. Message it for stories and more. ×

Comment Re:Only? (Score 0) 141

Japan's problem is their inability to let the failures go down in flames and fail for the good of the rest of the economy and of the society.

Japan is the place were you go to when you want to get funny money for trading/shorting, that's the place you go to borrow Yen to do all this insane trading. Japan is the place of the suicide economic policy, the kamikaze of policies (the one that USA is also following), the policy destroying the currency for the purpose of bailing out horrible failures just to keep them going due to political expediency and not due to any form of sound economics at all.

This in turn leads to economic stagnation, falling birth rates, depression, etc. All the good stuff that the central bankers together with the government love to give its people.

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 232

HDMI capture card. Watermark is useless when payment was with a disposable/stolen card.

The guys who do these rips and releases have been doing it with other streaming services for years.

So who broke into HDMI? I thought they guarded the keys to the kingdom pretty well and unless you happened on some stolen keys your player wasn't going to talk to your display/Capture card for love or money. If you did find some stolen keys, all they have to do is invalidate them and sooner or later your capture card will go on the blink as your devices get new keys. You can bet the content owners would do their best to make sure all your HDMI devices got updated before they let you play anything.

Watermarking IS useful even if a burner credit card is used because like it or not, the IP you are is going to be pretty obvious, even if you go though a proxy, and the player software they are likely going to use is going to have lots of access to information about you that would make it easier to find you. It might take some time to track you down, but they have the tools and are not afraid to use them.

Heck, the MPAA isn't afraid to implicate the innocent, why do you think they'd be afraid to track you down? Personally, I don't do the piracy thing and feel that those who do are being unethical. Not to mention that it's not all that much cheaper to do that stuff when all the necessary equipment and legal liability you take on is figured in. But hey, up to you.

Comment Re:Ninth Amendment (Score 1) 126

Same Sex marriage was always a right and a reality, long before the courts took up the case... What was at issue was government recognition of the union... It was about the legal institution of marriage, not the right to call yourself married, everybody had that already. You could go out and hire a hall, get a minister, send out invitations and have a wedding and nobody would stop you, nor would anybody stop you from believing your relationship was a marriage. Before the ruling, nobody's rights where infringed.

So what right was being abridged if the government didn't legally recognize what you considered a marriage? I haven't the faintest idea, but we now have invented *some* right to have your same sex union recognized by the government. Where is *THAT* in the list of things the government *must* or *should* do?

So, be precise here. If you want to claim to be married to your horse, government isn't going to stop you, you have the right to that belief. So is there now a case to create a right for this union to be recognized by the government? How about three people getting married? Four? I don't think anybody has a right to have the government legally recognize their specific definition of marriage is valid, yet that's what we have created now.

And one more thing on this specific subject. There was already a legal avenue for such relationships to have the legal status the proponents of same sex marriage claimed they lacked. It was called "Domestic Partnerships"/"Civil Unions". It afforded all the civil law protections of marriage. But even though there was really NOTHING being withheld, we went out and the courts created this new enumerated right anyway.

I personally think that the proponents of this where really after something totally different and that this really amounts to the establishment of a religious belief that takes precedence over another backed by the federal government and is such a violation of the 1st amendment establishment clause. However, I would guess you find that a stretch...

Comment I wonder what the Theater Chains think.. (Score 1) 232

My guess is that they are pitching a royal fit about this idea. They will not want to allow this, regardless of what it costs, unless the distribution companies make some kind of major concession. Theater chains fight hard to get exclusive rights to first run movies for a reason and they count on the suckers who feel they have to see the movie when it first comes out.

Distribution contracts for chains vary, but for the big movies, the distribution company gets a hefty percentage of the box office sales (as high as 100%) for first run films on opening weekend. After that, the percentage of the box office drops off as the film gets older and older. Where home viewers works for the distribution company (they get 100% of that take) it won't for the theater who losses out on concession sales and their percentage of the box office.

I wonder what the distribution companies are going to give up here? I also wonder what this actually says about the future of theaters? It is yet another nail in that long suffering industry's coffin, which started to die with the introduction of the VCR and video rental shops.

Think of it, now YOU can run a small theater business in your own home for $50 per showing.... If you have a small 12 seat media room, you can charge $20/seat, throw in $10 worth of drinks and popcorn and clear $170/showing. Two showings a night, two days a week and that's $680/week for 8 hours work. You'd only need to fill three seats to break even. Not bad money...

Comment Re:Dinner and an Other Movie for less. (Score 0) 232

I can take my sweetie to a nice dinner and released movie for less than $50.

Dang man.. She's a cheap date and you must live in the middle of nowhere.. Hang on to that one.

I'd be into the better half of $100 to do dinner and a move for two round these parts.

Oh wait... You haven't done this in awhile have you? How long has it been? 2 Decades or so?

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 232

Really? With a 4K TV and matching material, just move closer to the screen and volia! You have a larger screen... Well Up to a point you do. I mean having a large screen that's 200' away from you is kind of like having a somewhat big one 100' away. 60" at 5 feet is pretty darn big, when you consider how much of your visual field it covers.

Personally, the real reason is to get both the screen size, brightness and SOUND QUALITY. Although, all these can be approximated at home for less than you think if you don't mind getting close to the TV. It's also a lot more comfortable on my couch and the concession stand is MUCH cheaper.

Comment Re:Why stop at $50? (Score 1) 232

One person will pay it, so they can be the first to upload a torrent to The Pirate Bay

And you don't figure that they won't water mark YOUR copy of the movie so they will know exactly who did this and come after you?

(Or, in reality, you don't think they will protect the content by using encryption, custom player software and other DRM techniques to make it necessary for you to break into the HDMI signals directly to capture the video? Or are you planning to record it using your video camera pointed at the TV?)

Comment Re:Ninth Amendment (Score 1) 126

Oh boy.. Really? Like originalists don't know that. We fully understand that the constitution is intended to limit government, not enumerate all our human rights.

What I think is sadly forgotten is that the bill of rights sets out a framework of what government must NOT do, what they cannot regulate. Specifically what the federal government cannot do. The rest was left to the states and the people. So, for instance, Same Sex marriage. How's that a federally protected right from the constitution? Access to abortion on demand? Health Care? or more recently, the right of non-citizens to enter this country (as the 9th circuit just decided). How is ANY of that the purview of the federal courts? It's not. It's not part of the enumerated powers of the federal government, yet here we are where the federal courts have decided all those are rights. While on the other hand, the 2nd amendment gets infringed by background checks, licensing, and other restrictions at the federal, state and local levels without so much as a passing "we might be infringing" coming from the same judges who have invented all these new rights out of thin air.

Then you impugn the likes of Scalia because he didn't see the courts as the right place for all this creation of new rights nobody ever imagined where necessary to write down?

Comment Re:Incriminating evidence (Score 1) 126

I'm not sure if the problem was reading comprehension or unclear writing.... But that's what I thought I said... Consult an attorney before answering (or refusing to answer) questions, when being questioned by law enforcement as part of an investigation...Take your lawyer's advice.

You say something along the lines of "I'd like to answer your questions, but I must consult my lawyer first." Which is not refusing to answer, nor answering.

Comment Re:2nd (Score 1) 126

I don't think you get what I'm saying. Which is OK because it really was off topic.

I believe our courts have, in some cases, invented rights where none really exist and have ignored rights that ARE enumerated in our constitution. The 10th amendment is the most trampled with the 2nd, 4th and 5th often abridged as well. This should NOT be. Courts should be limited to interpreting the law, not MAKING law though their decisions. They will sometimes be called on to resolve conflicts in existing law and produce precedent, but that should not establish a de facto law or invent rights that here to fore didn't exist.

Unfortunately, that's not how most people see the courts. The courts are now a political tool. See any discussion of the Heller decision by Mrs. Clinton during the last debate or much of the "Citizen United" decision for examples of what I mean. This stuff should NOT be part of a political campaign and only is because the courts have allowed themselves to make decisions based on politics in the past. Which is my point. This should not be so.

Comment Suing the governments for interfering in my life (Score 0) 244

I want to sue all the governments for interfering in my life. This of-course means I want to sue all of you for interfering in my life. Of-course my resources are vastly inadequate for this, but I would love to do just that. I do not want this government 'protection' (read interference and oppression) to exist. But I do feel this is probably going to happen anyway. Need a new planet / new world of some sort without all this in it.

Comment Re:Incriminating evidence (Score 1) 126

Ah come on, you've seen this in all the crime investigation process dramas in the past decade. When the police ask you a question, YOU ask to consult your lawyer and according to your Miranda rights, you must be given access to your lawyer, end of questioning for the time being...

Now, I normally don't recommend you obtain legal knowledge watching TV shows, but in this case, there is enough truth here to be relevant.

I DO however recommend you shut up and consult your lawyer at any point you are not totally clear what your rights are, why the police are asking the questions or if you feel like they are looking to charge you for something you did or didn't do.

Comment Re:2nd (Score 1) 126

Yea, but they "must not abridge" that right you know...

Interesting how we have justified away our constitutional rights in the last few decades isn't it? For the "good of all" we now give up more and more freedom and the courts seem willing to help it happen in the name of social justice, political correctness or even the judge's personal feelings...

(Yes, I'm pointing at the 9th Circuit.... You folks need to swallow a huge does of "what does the law say" and stop with this "but it's mean if you do that" stuff.)

Slashdot Top Deals

Machines have less problems. I'd like to be a machine. -- Andy Warhol