Perhaps the U.K. minister is a fan of Babylon 5 (or Orwell). J. Michael Straczynski wrote in season 4 "The Deconstruction of Falling Stars" about a government trying to re-write history. This sounds like another variation on the same melody.
Scientists deal in real facts. Governments (and corporations) deal in good facts
What's the difference you ask?
real facts represent reality. Unfiltered by any ideal or agenda.
good facts represent facts that support the current ideology or agenda of the ruling party [or company] that espouses them.
Good facts are fluid and infinitely malleable. Real facts are rigid, and only suitable for burying.
Actually what we currently have is a corporatocracy. We might even have a fascist corporatocracy.
The Free Market is a myth. Always was, always will be. Capitalism is a nice prod, an incentive to put a little life into an economy. Just like a game of monopoly, capitalism hates a free market. The end result of a successful capitalistic system, is one person owning everything and everyone else slaves to the winner. Just take a look at Standard Oil, the Great Depression, etc. to see where a lack of regulation gets you.
Even those who advocate for a freer market understand that there are certain situations where the market will fail. Natural monopolies are one, it's terribly inefficient to have a dozen water pipes into everyone's home, and physically impossible to have a hundred roads between two villages. Healthcare is another area where the free market is ill equipped to function.
You can choose to buy Pepsi over Coke, or something else entirely based on the price/value that a particular company brings to the table. Competition between producers vying for consumers dollars. But even here, there need to be basic rules (regulations). If Coke stole all of its ingredients and utilized slave labourers it could probably produce it's product much cheaper than Pepsi. That's what a truly free market would allow. So even in areas amenable to market forces, there need to be some regulations.
Healthcare is something that when you need it you either get it or you die. There is no doing without, at least not for long. In addition, the people allowed to provide healthcare is heavily regulated, not just anyone can perform cardiac surgery (nor should they). Patents, a government granted monopoly [a.k.a. regulation] prohibits competitors from creating lower cost versions of life saving medicines. Which is the subject of the original article. Pharma is using regulations to stifle the Free Market driving up the cost of medicines in India.
So if you truly wanted the free market to dictate health care, you would have to be prepared for lots of people to suffer and die. As scrooge would have said we would just be removing some of the surplus population.
Hopefully you can see that the problem isn't an end result of our:
'...petty "Regulate Everything" mentality and the constant assault on the Free Market.'
As usual things are going in the absolutely wrong direction.
As usual things are going in the absolutely wrong direction. Current healthcare costs, and prescriptions being an ever bigger part of that, just keep rising. The current system is unsustainable.
It's a classic case of market failure. People can not not get healthcare, unless they want to suffer and die. Without strong regulations, including price controls, the prices will just keep going up. Great if you are in the industry, disastrous for sick people and the economy in general. It's quite literally a case of; your money or your life.
Whether or not the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is working is irrelevant. Even if it is, it's trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem isn't that there is a lack of universal health insurance, it's that there's a lack of universal (and affordable) health coverage.
Having a health insurance plan with for example a $10,000 deductible, 80% coinsurance, no prescription coverage, and very few doctors that will take it, isn't much better than no coverage at all. With no coverage, at least you are saving on the premiums and you know more doctors will see you.
When Vermont tried single payer, it wasn't the single payer part that doomed it, it was giving everyone coverage without having a way to contain healthcare costs.
India shouldn't be giving up on using generics to produce reasonably priced medicine for its people. Instead the United States should be emulating India and making more use of compulsory licenses here.
If letting terrorists use your website, app, hardware [think encrypted iPhone] means that you can be charged with providing material support for terrorism, them they don't need to rely on the All Writs Act.
Just like any other completely ethical and above board plea deal, if you unlock this iPhone, then maybe we won't have you arrested for providing material support for terrorism.
The government operates on many levels and is willing to play the long game....
Back to when the TV's remote was the VHS Recorder.
Sure, that would be nice. Those of us old enough to remember when VHS was a shiny new thing and a television was a hulking CRT with a couple of dials (one for VHF and another for UHF channels), you could use your VCR
(that's video cassette recorder, think 8 track tape compared to CD... hmm if you don't know what a VCR is, what are the odds you'll know what 8 track is? Nevermind... Wikipedia is your friend).
remote control as the remote for the television. After cable had been around for a while television makers started incorporating that functionality into televisions directly. Sure you still needed a cable box for PPV or premium channels (think HBO, Cinimax, etc.), but basic ones unscrambled and available to anyone who wanted to add it to their products.
If you combined that with the changes to the law that prohibited cable companies from charging you per television, we entered the nirvana where we subscribed to cable and could run it to all the kids rooms, the rec room in the basement, or wherever without asking the cable company's permission (or paying them more). This was also the era where we had television decoder cards for our personal computers and you could watch television on your computer, or create the first personal DVRs.
This ended when they switched from analog to scrambled digital. Every television requires it's own set top box. They're not charging per television, just per set top box. See all perfectly legal (does anyone remember the old Rabbit system that would broadcast the television signal from one television to one or more other televisions? Think in house analog Sling TV, limited to other televisions).
If the FCC succeeds in reopening this can of worms, just think of all the innovation that could happen? Innovation that your local cable company won't necessarily be getting a cut of. That probably gives them more indigestion than just the potential loss of their 20 billion in set top revenue.
Roku's betting on this initiative ending up just like CableCARD
Roku's probably betting on this initiative ending up just like CableCARD. If history's any guide, there will be a lot of fanfare, maybe some progress, and then it will either be stillborn, or so hamstrung with restrictions that it may well have been.
CableCARD itself, not exactly the poster child of success.
Aero - crushed by lawsuits, Hulu hamstrung into uselessness, various third party players (including the great and powerful Apple) scaling back or abandoning the space altogether.
The only success stories are those outside of the traditional cable industry entirely (see: Netflix, Amazon Prime).
The FCC still hasn't done anything about; below the line fees, cushy insider deals (ex: XBox as cable box, but not PS), capping the competition while giving your own programming a free ride, etc.
They are probably betting that when the dust settles, it's better to be on CableCo's good side than out in the cold.
I think all of this right to be forgotten business might be a good idea, it's just directed at the wrong targets.
Here in the US we shouldn't be left out. We should have a right to be forgotten too.
Just in our case it's the government, not Google or Facebook, that should be required to expunge truthful data about us that they should never have acquired in the first place.
The difficult part will be knowing all the government agencies we would need to send our requests too; NSA, CIA, ICE, Homeland Security.... IRS.
You don't think the government would consent to having a single agency handle all of our requests to be forgotten.... do you?
The only problem with the xkcd solution you've provided is that, seeing as the owner is already dead, there's no one left to drug or hit with a $5 wrench.
"... work hard and quietly at getting round censorship..."
because there was space to do so. There were times when they weren't being watched that made activities like that possible.
Modern technology is allowing oppressive governments, with the tools, to do things that were practically impossible before [and showing us just how oppressive supposedly enlightened governments, like the US, would like to be].
During the cold war it was practically impossible to track someone's every movement for months at a time, with cell phones it's trivial.
Tracking the location of every car that travels around town, impossible. Not now with automated license plate readers.
Putting a rural suspect's back yard [surrounded by an 8ft fence] under 24 hour surveillance for weeks at a time, kinda difficult not to spot the guy sitting on the pole holding the camera. Now, just nail a small hard to notice web cam to the pole.
Somehow I think that even Ms Bowles has limits on just how public she's willing to be. Sure she has an Echo in her bedroom, but I doubt she has public web cams there [or maybe she does, what do I know]. Transcripts of all her conversations, listings of all her purchases and prescriptions, her-up-to-the-minute itinerary and current GPS location are all posted in an easily accessible public place right? No? Why not, I thought she was so over that whole privacy thing.
No one can live a completely public existence. Freedom, like a flower, dies under the merciless gaze of an unblinking sun.
If people think they are being watched, if what they are doing, saying, is being recorded then they self censor. It doesn't matter if it never actually gets seen by anyone, the thought that it might will force people to change their behaviour.
Eventually it's all twitchy, conformist, paranoid psychosis.
Just because she's apparently lived a comfortable, doesn't think she has anything to worry about from the law, life so far, she's apparently just fine with the government breaking into people's cell phones. I say, great for her. She can turn off any encryption and not require a pass code on her phone.
The rest of us need a chance to live a life with one less reason to fear our phones.....
If just means already has been as far as agencies like the NSA are concerned. As the Snowden revelations should have made clear, the only problem with the tin foil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy proclaiming subculture was that they weren’t paranoid enough.
Assuming the FBI gets it's way, the only thing it will change is that every LEO, government agency, and divorce attorney will now be able to get access to anyone's iPhone contents. Well that and the data that just happens to fall out of an NSA briefcase and into an LEO/CIA operatives hands will attributed to this perfectly legal and above board strongly tailored and judicially approved source.
Well that and people who care anything about security will migrate to other platforms.
I guess you haven't been following the stories on Techdirt.
Your quote:
"Such a strategy was doomed to fail from the beginning for any number of reasons, but mostly because you actually have to be using what you're trying to trademark in commerce in order to get it approved, and trolling isn't a commercial enterprise as far as I know.[emphasis mine]"
Leads me to think that you haven't been following the stories here on Techdirt. We've been regaled with tales of companies who definitely practise trolling as a commercial enterprise; Prenda, Malibu, Crypto Peak, Intellectual Ventures, etc. the list is too numerous to contain with in a single posting.
Perhaps you were referring to commercial trademark trolling? I haven't heard too much about that particular subspecies of troll lately.
I smell an opportunity for a new app (cellphone capability)....
If municipalities keep pushing for vague halo laws, then perhaps it's a opportunity for an enterprising company/developer to fill the LEO created gap.
In the future what we are going to need is for cameras to calculate the distance between the camera and the subject being filmed and display that number in the metadata and perhaps on the image itself.
A post app altercation may go like this:
LEO: "Your honour, not only was the perp vigorously resisting arrest, forcing me to defend my very life by shooting her 23 times, this person was obstructing me in my official duties by filming the lawful interaction from closer than the legally allowed 20 foot distance."
Citizen Camera Wielder: "Judge, I think the video, safely retrieved from Google Drive after the officer destroyed my cell phone, speaks for itself. As you can plainly see, the octogenarian was face down after the first three shots when the officer rolled her over and fired the remaining shots into the front of her prone and unconscious body all the while yelling at the woman to 'Stop Resisting'. Here you can see [pointing toward the screen], he notices me filming him, he then gets up and rushes toward the camera. That's when he destroyed my phone and charged me with obstructing justice, interfering with an officer in his duties, and violating the minimum legal filming distance. As the distance display in the lower left corner clearly shows, until the officer charged toward me, at no point was the camera closer than 25 feet from the scene."
Judge:"I don't think we have enough evidence to charge the officer with any wrong doing during this altercation, but I will leave it up to the District Attorney and the Police Commissioner. As for the charge of violating the minimum legal filming distance, and the related charges, I am dismissing them all. You are free to go."
So at least the camera person can survive the altercation.... this time.
I think you might have forgotten that along with Orwell's 1984, most modern spy... I mean intelligence agencies also have Carroll's works to go by. In this case Through the Looking Glass explains things quite nicely;
"'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'
'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.' " [Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass ]
So the answer to the recent conundrum introduced by the European Court is clear, you've highlighted the solution yourself:
... “must clearly identify a specific person … or a single set of premises [emphasis mine]” ...
A country, say Germany, is a single set of premises, problem solved.
What that's too small, well Europe is a single set of premises, still too restrictive, how about Earth is a single set of premises.
I mean if the NSA can claim that an email message is a premises, or that anyone who talks, sends receives, or is mentioned by (out to seven hops) is a single target. Then for European agencies to claim that Europe is a single premises is just too easy. I mean look, it's even a singular noun.
Hopefully these particular local cops have just used up their Ignore the 4th amendment for this reason card.
Now that's is been officially brought to both the judge and the police department's attention that these tests are less than reliable, they shouldn't be able to state, with a straight face, that they had no idea.
Re: Re: So, just how far away will you have to sit from your gigantic television to stop seeing pixels at 1080p? Is your living room that large?
So;
If I have an 8ft high room, I can comfortably fit a 210" class television (larger if I have a larger room, say 10ft high, though 8ft is common enough) with a typical viewing distance of 10ft, how high would the resolution need to be to not see the pixels from that distance?
If history tells us anything, people won't get a smaller television, just because they don't have a big enough house.
It's about as effective as forcing non-infringing users to watch the unskippable "You might be a pirate" messages on DVD and Blu-rays. After the DRM, those are probably the first thing that gets stripped from unauthorized copies of movies. Soon followed by ads and other unskippable marketing.
On the post: UK Government Forbids Publicly-Funded Scientists And Academics From Giving Advice It Disagrees With
Good Facts vs. Real Facts
Scientists deal in real facts.
Governments (and corporations) deal in good facts
What's the difference you ask?
real facts represent reality. Unfiltered by any ideal or agenda.
good facts represent facts that support the current ideology or agenda of the ruling party [or company] that espouses them.
Good facts are fluid and infinitely malleable. Real facts are rigid, and only suitable for burying.
On the post: India Finally Bows To US Pressure: Promises Not To Use Compulsory Licensing For Drugs
Public costs, private profits.
The Free Market is a myth. Always was, always will be. Capitalism is a nice prod, an incentive to put a little life into an economy. Just like a game of monopoly, capitalism hates a free market. The end result of a successful capitalistic system, is one person owning everything and everyone else slaves to the winner. Just take a look at Standard Oil, the Great Depression, etc. to see where a lack of regulation gets you.
Even those who advocate for a freer market understand that there are certain situations where the market will fail. Natural monopolies are one, it's terribly inefficient to have a dozen water pipes into everyone's home, and physically impossible to have a hundred roads between two villages. Healthcare is another area where the free market is ill equipped to function.
You can choose to buy Pepsi over Coke, or something else entirely based on the price/value that a particular company brings to the table. Competition between producers vying for consumers dollars. But even here, there need to be basic rules (regulations). If Coke stole all of its ingredients and utilized slave labourers it could probably produce it's product much cheaper than Pepsi. That's what a truly free market would allow. So even in areas amenable to market forces, there need to be some regulations.
Healthcare is something that when you need it you either get it or you die. There is no doing without, at least not for long. In addition, the people allowed to provide healthcare is heavily regulated, not just anyone can perform cardiac surgery (nor should they). Patents, a government granted monopoly [a.k.a. regulation] prohibits competitors from creating lower cost versions of life saving medicines. Which is the subject of the original article. Pharma is using regulations to stifle the Free Market driving up the cost of medicines in India.
So if you truly wanted the free market to dictate health care, you would have to be prepared for lots of people to suffer and die. As scrooge would have said we would just be removing some of the surplus population.
Hopefully you can see that the problem isn't an end result of our:
It's the result of the wrong regulation.
On the post: India Finally Bows To US Pressure: Promises Not To Use Compulsory Licensing For Drugs
As usual things are going in the absolutely wrong direction.
It's a classic case of market failure. People can not not get healthcare, unless they want to suffer and die. Without strong regulations, including price controls, the prices will just keep going up. Great if you are in the industry, disastrous for sick people and the economy in general. It's quite literally a case of; your money or your life.
Whether or not the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. Obamacare) is working is irrelevant. Even if it is, it's trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem isn't that there is a lack of universal health insurance, it's that there's a lack of universal (and affordable) health coverage.
Having a health insurance plan with for example a $10,000 deductible, 80% coinsurance, no prescription coverage, and very few doctors that will take it, isn't much better than no coverage at all. With no coverage, at least you are saving on the premiums and you know more doctors will see you.
When Vermont tried single payer, it wasn't the single payer part that doomed it, it was giving everyone coverage without having a way to contain healthcare costs.
India shouldn't be giving up on using generics to produce reasonably priced medicine for its people. Instead the United States should be emulating India and making more use of compulsory licenses here.
On the post: Senator Feinstein Revives Stupid Idea That Internet Companies Are 'Materially Supporting Terrorism' If ISIS Members Use Their Sites
You're thinking too small........
If letting terrorists use your website, app, hardware [think encrypted iPhone] means that you can be charged with providing material support for terrorism, them they don't need to rely on the All Writs Act.
Just like any other completely ethical and above board plea deal, if you unlock this iPhone, then maybe we won't have you arrested for providing material support for terrorism.
The government operates on many levels and is willing to play the long game....
On the post: Afraid Of Upsetting The Cable Industry, Roku Won't Support FCC Quest For Increased Set Top Box Competition
Back to when the TV's remote was the VHS Recorder.
remote control as the remote for the television. After cable had been around for a while television makers started incorporating that functionality into televisions directly. Sure you still needed a cable box for PPV or premium channels (think HBO, Cinimax, etc.), but basic ones unscrambled and available to anyone who wanted to add it to their products.
If you combined that with the changes to the law that prohibited cable companies from charging you per television, we entered the nirvana where we subscribed to cable and could run it to all the kids rooms, the rec room in the basement, or wherever without asking the cable company's permission (or paying them more). This was also the era where we had television decoder cards for our personal computers and you could watch television on your computer, or create the first personal DVRs.
This ended when they switched from analog to scrambled digital. Every television requires it's own set top box. They're not charging per television, just per set top box. See all perfectly legal (does anyone remember the old Rabbit system that would broadcast the television signal from one television to one or more other televisions? Think in house analog Sling TV, limited to other televisions).
If the FCC succeeds in reopening this can of worms, just think of all the innovation that could happen? Innovation that your local cable company won't necessarily be getting a cut of. That probably gives them more indigestion than just the potential loss of their 20 billion in set top revenue.
On the post: Afraid Of Upsetting The Cable Industry, Roku Won't Support FCC Quest For Increased Set Top Box Competition
Roku's betting on this initiative ending up just like CableCARD
CableCARD itself, not exactly the poster child of success.
Aero - crushed by lawsuits, Hulu hamstrung into uselessness, various third party players (including the great and powerful Apple) scaling back or abandoning the space altogether.
The only success stories are those outside of the traditional cable industry entirely (see: Netflix, Amazon Prime).
The FCC still hasn't done anything about; below the line fees, cushy insider deals (ex: XBox as cable box, but not PS), capping the competition while giving your own programming a free ride, etc.
They are probably betting that when the dust settles, it's better to be on CableCo's good side than out in the cold.
Just a thought.....
On the post: South Korea Embraces Ridiculous Right To Be Forgotten As Well
Right idea wrong target
Here in the US we shouldn't be left out. We should have a right to be forgotten too.
Just in our case it's the government, not Google or Facebook, that should be required to expunge truthful data about us that they should never have acquired in the first place.
The difficult part will be knowing all the government agencies we would need to send our requests too; NSA, CIA, ICE, Homeland Security.... IRS.
You don't think the government would consent to having a single agency handle all of our requests to be forgotten.... do you?
On the post: Yes, The Backdoor That The FBI Is Requesting Can Work On Modern iPhones Too
Re: Re: Re: Strong Passwords on iOS
Unless you are talking about Tim Cook.....
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Re: Privacy not an Issue? Really?
Or for the American English majority:
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Re: Re: Somehow I think even she has limits.....
because there was space to do so. There were times when they weren't being watched that made activities like that possible.
Modern technology is allowing oppressive governments, with the tools, to do things that were practically impossible before [and showing us just how oppressive supposedly enlightened governments, like the US, would like to be].
On the post: Guardian Tech Reporter: Apple Should Help FBI Break Into iPhone Because I Don't Consider Privacy All That Important
Somehow I think even she has limits.....
No one can live a completely public existence. Freedom, like a flower, dies under the merciless gaze of an unblinking sun.
If people think they are being watched, if what they are doing, saying, is being recorded then they self censor. It doesn't matter if it never actually gets seen by anyone, the thought that it might will force people to change their behaviour.
Eventually it's all twitchy, conformist, paranoid psychosis.
Just because she's apparently lived a comfortable, doesn't think she has anything to worry about from the law, life so far, she's apparently just fine with the government breaking into people's cell phones. I say, great for her. She can turn off any encryption and not require a pass code on her phone.
The rest of us need a chance to live a life with one less reason to fear our phones.....
On the post: Yes, The Backdoor That The FBI Is Requesting Can Work On Modern iPhones Too
Two words; parallel construction
If just means already has been as far as agencies like the NSA are concerned. As the Snowden revelations should have made clear, the only problem with the tin foil hat wearing paranoid conspiracy proclaiming subculture was that they weren’t paranoid enough.
Assuming the FBI gets it's way, the only thing it will change is that every LEO, government agency, and divorce attorney will now be able to get access to anyone's iPhone contents. Well that and the data that just happens to fall out of an NSA briefcase and into an LEO/CIA operatives hands will attributed to this perfectly legal and above board strongly tailored and judicially approved source.
Well that and people who care anything about security will migrate to other platforms.
On the post: Sad Raiders Fan Tries To Keep Team In Oakland By Squatting On Trademark
I guess you haven't been following the stories on Techdirt.
Leads me to think that you haven't been following the stories here on Techdirt. We've been regaled with tales of companies who definitely practise trolling as a commercial enterprise; Prenda, Malibu, Crypto Peak, Intellectual Ventures, etc. the list is too numerous to contain with in a single posting.
Perhaps you were referring to commercial trademark trolling? I haven't heard too much about that particular subspecies of troll lately.
On the post: Another Lawmaker Is Trying To Create A Photography-Free Zone For Police Officers
I smell an opportunity for a new app (cellphone capability)....
In the future what we are going to need is for cameras to calculate the distance between the camera and the subject being filmed and display that number in the metadata and perhaps on the image itself.
A post app altercation may go like this:
LEO: "Your honour, not only was the perp vigorously resisting arrest, forcing me to defend my very life by shooting her 23 times, this person was obstructing me in my official duties by filming the lawful interaction from closer than the legally allowed 20 foot distance."
Citizen Camera Wielder: "Judge, I think the video, safely retrieved from Google Drive after the officer destroyed my cell phone, speaks for itself. As you can plainly see, the octogenarian was face down after the first three shots when the officer rolled her over and fired the remaining shots into the front of her prone and unconscious body all the while yelling at the woman to 'Stop Resisting'. Here you can see [pointing toward the screen], he notices me filming him, he then gets up and rushes toward the camera. That's when he destroyed my phone and charged me with obstructing justice, interfering with an officer in his duties, and violating the minimum legal filming distance. As the distance display in the lower left corner clearly shows, until the officer charged toward me, at no point was the camera closer than 25 feet from the scene."
Judge:"I don't think we have enough evidence to charge the officer with any wrong doing during this altercation, but I will leave it up to the District Attorney and the Police Commissioner. As for the charge of violating the minimum legal filming distance, and the related charges, I am dismissing them all. You are free to go."
So at least the camera person can survive the altercation.... this time.
On the post: European Court Of Human Rights May Have Just Outlawed Mass Surveillance Without Most People Realizing It
You just aren't thinking like a spook yet.
So the answer to the recent conundrum introduced by the European Court is clear, you've highlighted the solution yourself:
A country, say Germany, is a single set of premises, problem solved.
What that's too small, well Europe is a single set of premises, still too restrictive, how about Earth is a single set of premises.
I mean if the NSA can claim that an email message is a premises, or that anyone who talks, sends receives, or is mentioned by (out to seven hops) is a single target. Then for European agencies to claim that Europe is a single premises is just too easy. I mean look, it's even a singular noun.
On the post: With Fixed Costs And Fat Margins, Comcast's Broadband Cap Justifications Are Total Bullshit
"The bottom line is there's simply no financial or technical justification for what Comcast is doing."
Of course there is,
Higher Profits !!!
On the post: Judge Helps Ensure That The More Ignorant Law Enforcement Officers Are, The More They'll Be Able To Get Away With
Re: Who's responsible for the tests?
Now that's is been officially brought to both the judge and the police department's attention that these tests are less than reliable, they shouldn't be able to state, with a straight face, that they had no idea.
On the post: Warner Brothers, Intel Begin Futile Legal Assault To Defend Ultra HD And 4K DRM
Re: Re: So, just how far away will you have to sit from your gigantic television to stop seeing pixels at 1080p? Is your living room that large?
If I have an 8ft high room, I can comfortably fit a 210" class television (larger if I have a larger room, say 10ft high, though 8ft is common enough) with a typical viewing distance of 10ft, how high would the resolution need to be to not see the pixels from that distance?
If history tells us anything, people won't get a smaller television, just because they don't have a big enough house.
On the post: Warner Brothers, Intel Begin Futile Legal Assault To Defend Ultra HD And 4K DRM
Re: Re: Is more necessary or just better to some?
if film == HD
iMax == ???
On the post: Warner Brothers, Intel Begin Futile Legal Assault To Defend Ultra HD And 4K DRM
And this is news, why?
It's about as effective as forcing non-infringing users to watch the unskippable "You might be a pirate" messages on DVD and Blu-rays. After the DRM, those are probably the first thing that gets stripped from unauthorized copies of movies. Soon followed by ads and other unskippable marketing.
Next >>