Idiots.

Frank

A lot of computers these days with high-end graphics cards have TV-out in both composite and S-video. My friend has his laptop connected to his 35" TV via an S-Video cable, and the results are stunning. He can sit back on his couch and surf the web, and standard text is actually legible and sharp. He also runs his cable through the graphics card, which has a feature much like Tivo where you can pause live TV, and record programs to your hard disk. (The amount you can record is determined by which resolution you select.)

I'm with Frank on this one. Anyone willing to waste hours of their life downloading and watching a movie in such horrible quality is just plain stupid. And I think the guessing on why people watch that crap is on target: they think they are getting something for nothing.

I wholeheartedly agree, though. From the looks of the sizes of some of these files, (sometimes multiple files at 200-300mb each) it would take 4 or more hours even on a typical high speed connection. Four hours of my time is worth much more than just running over to the store and spending $7-10 to purchase a clean, professional VHS copy.

There was an ABC Nightline special about pirating movies and CDs where they interviewed a group of... for lack of a better word, "dorks", who were bragging to the reporter how "...you can name ANY movie and I can get it for you! Just like that!" The kid proceeds to play a lo-res, subtitled mess of a movie that's still out in theaters as the reporter watches, perplexed as to why someone would want this. Essentially, it's prestiege. They don't care about the movie or the quality, but just trade them like 300MB baseball cards so they become "cool" in the hacker community. But even in terms of baseball cards, nobody would trade you anything for a wrinkled or torn one, so I still don't get it.

 |  IP: Logged

Clint

Wireless Jamming Debate Rages On
With the number of cell phone Latest News about cell phone cell phones" users worldwide fast approaching one billion individuals, it was inevitable that the ubiquitous devices would be recognized as an annoyance in some circles, and would even be used for nefarious purposes by evildoers, in the most extreme scenarios.

Consequently, a number of companies have developed a variety of radio-frequency jamming technologies that can block calls and otherwise prevent signals from reaching phones. Such devices are banned in most countries, including the U.S., but some of these companies report doing brisk business with military and law enforcement agencies, as well as with houses of worship, theaters, concert halls and upscale restaurants.

Security and Etiquette
Netline Communications Technologies, an Israel-based firm that claims a leadership position in the jamming market, contends that there are plenty of good reasons for blocking cell phone communications, ethical and legal issues aside.

Loreen Haim, director of marketing and sales for Netline, told Wireless NewsFactor that the company's C-Guard products, which create a "cellular firewall" that blocks communications at varying ranges, are being sold worldwide -- including in the U.S. This is despite the fact that there are no countries where phone jamming is "totally legal," to Haim's knowledge.

"Our main market is security Relevant Products/Services from IBM" organizations, law enforcement and the military," she said. "But we also sell to cinemas, concert halls and restaurants, where ringing phones are considered a serious breach of etiquette." Indeed, annoying rings, beeps and even tunes from popular songs are being heard more frequently in restaurants, movie theaters, operas and classrooms, prompting a public backlash.

Long and Short of It
Haim pointed out that cell phones increasingly are being used to eavesdrop and, worse, detonate bombs from remote locations. In the post-September 11th world, she added, the need for security has become a priority across the globe.

Netline makes a variety of devices that block the signals from cell towers to phones. A high-powered version has a range of 1 kilometer, while a low-powered version, designed for indoor use, can jam signals in an 80-meter radius from the blocking device.

A similar product is marketed by Wireless Technology, a Ventura, California-based company. Its Mobile Blocker jamming device can block wireless phone and pager signals within a 40-meter circle by using an encoded signal from a base transmitter that is emitted at the same frequency as pager and cellular communications.

Company spokesperson Eric Myers told Wireless NewsFactor the jammer is sold primarily overseas, to the same customers as those targeted by Netline.

Legal, Ethical Issues
While there may be good reasons for blocking cell phone communications -- and apparently some private businesses find it easy to circumvent the law -- most governments are reluctant to legalize the technology (FCC) has cited "jamming leakage" as a primary reason for rejecting it.

The point of controversy is that it is impossible to be certain that the installation of a cell phone jammer would not affect cell phones outside the designated blockage area or interfere with the use of other devices. Then there are the issues of safety and individual rights. Cell phones are used by many as a security tool in case of a medical or other emergency. Some contend that no one has the right to infringe on public airwaves.

Haim counters that if restaurant or theater owners can ban smoking or enforce a dress code, they should be able to prevent the use of cell phones within a limited area.

Governments Are Reluctant
Such countries as Japan, Korea and Canada have mulled the legalization of phone jammers, and a Japanese researcher recently unveiled a nonelectric method of passively blocking cell phone signals using wood paneling with tiny magnetic particles that foil electromagnetic signals.

While such ingenious inventions are being rolled out, it is unlikely cell phone jammers will gain widespread acceptance by governments, especially in the U.S. "In the U.S. cell phones are considered safety and security tools, and if, for example, a person has a heart attack and can't make a call from a restaurant or movie theater, that business could be liable to legal action," IDC Latest News about IDC" analyst Keith Waryas told Wireless NewsFactor.

While the use of cell phone jammers can be justified by the military and law enforcement agencies, he pointed out, the fact that it is difficult to isolate the range of blockage will deter approval of the technology. Besides, the telecommunications lobby would exert its considerable influence on lawmakers to thwart any legislation approving jamming technologies, Waryas noted.

Education, Not Legislation
Travis Larson, a spokesperson for the Cellular Telecommunications & Internet Association Latest News about CTIA" (CTIA), an industry trade organization, reinforced that opinion. "The airwaves are a public asset, and the idea that one person can jam a phone frequency band is like a single person deciding he or she can block a lane of traffic on the highway," he told Wireless NewsFactor.

There are doctors who rely on cell phones -- and police, fire and rescue personnel use adjacent airwaves for their communications, Larson noted. "Blocking those emergency calls would be socially irresponsible," he said.

Instead, said Larson, those who want to limit cell phone use should focus on education instead of high-tech innovation or legislation. "It is easy to inform people with a posted sign or to tell them that they have to turn off their phones or put them on the vibrating mode when they enter a restaurant or theater," he said.

 |  IP: Logged

Would you know if the IA local in San Luis Obispo still exists? I worked as a "permit man" for them at the Lompoc theatre and drive-in in the early 60's.

But passive devices seem like a totally different animal. The problem of a theatre liability for someone not getting help because they couldn't use their cell would still be a serious issue, although I would think posting signs saying that cell phone operation is hampered in the theatre proper (but not in the lobby) might just be enough to save the theatre from liability hell.

I wonder how much more that magnet impregnated wood adds to the overall cost of construction. I would assume you could add that stuff perhaps even more easily to other building materials, like the sound absorbing spray coating they use on ceilings and walls....maybe it could even be added to paint. We are in the process of a multimillion dollar renovation (I'll be lucky if I see it before I retire) -- this might be the time to go to the next architect's meeting waving a bucket of paint with those namo-magnets in it!

I do not know if the IA local is still around yet have made 2 phone calls, one to the chamber of commerce and one to the local film society. Neither of them have any information on this. At the risk of aounding stupid, what does IA stand for?

http://www.iatse.lm.com/
http://www.iatse.lm.com/crafts.html

------------------
John P. Pytlak, Senior Technical Specialist
Worldwide Technical Services, Entertainment Imaging
Research Labs, Building 69, Room 7525A
Rochester, New York, 14650-1922 USA
Tel: +1 585 477 5325 Cell: +1 585 781 4036 Fax: +1 585 722 7243
e-mail: john.pytlak@kodak.com
Web site: http://www.kodak.com/go/motion

 |  IP: Logged

 |  IP: Logged

Not necessarily. Here's a funny/embarassing story. One of the biggest problem for mag sound systems is stopping all that EMR in the booth from being picked up by the very sensitive magnetic head clusters/mag preamps sitting right next to the change-over solenoid coils. I got the bright idea that if I wrapped the change-over unit and the mag head cluster with lead, that would prevent the 60Hz magnetic field from the change-over coils from radiating into the mag penthouse and the heads. I searched around for lead foil of some kind and finally found a shop that had some but only in huge 200 lb rolls. I was determined to eliminate the hum so I decided this was worth it. I bought the roll -- quite expensive -- and cut the pieces I needed and wrapped the change-over units and the heads. I did a test and found that the shielding didn't seem to do much in attenuated the hum.

I called a sound engineer friend of mine in to take a look-see, maybe I was doing something wrong with the way I wrapped them. He came over with a few other studio techs, we downed a few and then I showed them my handywork. They all looked at the change-overs wrapped three times and the heads also with some foil on the back and sides with this heavy duty lead foil. They seemed to be hesitating in giving their opinions. I am thinking, ok it's not too pretty, but it if the function I am after.

I said, "So what do you think? Why isn't it working?"

My friend then asked, "But why is that foil all around it."

Says I, "Why to block the magnetic radiation from the coils from reaching the mag heads."

He said, "Why would you use that foil stuff?"

I was getting a little annoyed, "To block the magnetic radiation....it's LEAD" I said again.

They all looked at each other. Then one of the others chuckled, "Lead doesn't block magnetic fields."

Pause. "Of course it does.....doesn't it? I mean, I always thought magnetic fields couldn't go through lead."

One of them began laughing. "Frankie, you're thinking of Superman...Superman's Xray vision can't go through lead."