On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:04:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <Tony@rhylonline.com>
Gave us:

> No doubt you are both clued
>up enough to see that here there's no mention of testing - so all that
>is required is a declaration (in the "Technical File - held by the
>manufacturer/importer) that the equipment/item been designed to conform
>with the relevant directive(s).


Yes, dip****. However, when a non-conformance is found by a
customer or other party, and is reported, you can bet your sweet ass
that bloody england won't be allowing it past the docks once they get
wind of it.

While taking a break from performing an interpretive dance of 'Flight of
the Bumble Bee', chrisv wrote:

> Bobbie wrote:
>
>>Uuuum, because if they bought that HDTV with HDMI input prior to February
>>of 2006 they'd be SOL so far as connecting a HDCP compliant device to that
>>old and now antiquated HDMI television. I'd mush rather leave the unusable
>>antique hanging in the living room and just buy a decent 16:9 monitor for
>>the computer. It'd be much cheaper.
>
> Sorry, but I'm lost. I'd have sworn that HDCP has been built-into
> digital televisions for years. I'd have sworn that my
> several-year-old widescreen CRT box, which is too old to have HDMI on
> it, has a fully HDCP-compliant DVI input.

Yeah, confusing isn't. My Toshiba set is HDCP 1.1 Complaint. Problem is,
and this is what delayed the PS3, HD-DVD and Blu-Ray in general is the
implementation of HDCP ver 1.3 which occured in June 2006.
It's as confusing as hell trying to figure it out. Toshiba says that for
the most part my set should work with current HDCP sources and media but
with 1.3 there are no guarantees. See, the media providers have final say
as to which aspects of HDCP they will apply to a movie. Some discs could
come with no HDCP requirements in such that all HDMI sets will work. And
if Hollywood or who ever else decides that they want maximum protection
for a movie then they can lock it down and enforce all aspects of copy
protection. How my set will react is any ones guess. Toshiba won't even
say. According to Silicon Image, Intel's partner in the creation of HDMI,
the HDCP key matrix is supposed top be renewable so that if HDCP is broken
in the future they can simply update the keys. Now the question I have is
this. What happens to movies recorded with the old keys? Silicon Image
proposes that these keys be updated simply by passing new updated media
through the processor. Do you have the right to refuse the new keys?


>
> Please provide proof of your assertions that HDCP has "changed" so
> that older HDCP-compliant displays will not work.

Read through this page:
http://www.hdmi.org/consumer/faq.asp

And pay very close attention to the re-itteration of 1.3 being BACKWARDS
compatible with 1.0 to 1.2. Nowhere do they state that 1.2 and older will
be forward compatible. Windows XP is pretty well backwards compatible
with most software created for prior Windows versions as it is backwards
compatible. Can you run XP specific programs on Win95 or Win98? Didn't
think so.

Again my email response from Toshiba regarding my set was that in general
my set 'should' work with newer 1.3 compliant devices and media.



>
> In any case, you can still use the component-video inputs.

Ah, there in lies the kicker. In order to properly plug the 'analog hole'
newer HDMI-HDCP compliant boxes can still come with analog outputs but
they have to down grade the output, thus making it un-appealing to copy.
Under HDCP requirements analog outputs on HDCP compatible
devices must be limited to 480p maximum. Kind of a waste of my set.

--
Bobbie the Triple Killer
http://members.shaw.ca/bobbie4/index.htm

email Bobbie @ bobbie4R3MOV3TH1S@shaw.ca
remember to 'remove this'

Bobbie recently switched to Ubuntu 6.
Why? Cause he can, that's why.

In message <vvtlp25rb30s6oufq551nmdcj7c0eeugt1@4ax.com>, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes
>On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 20:04:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <Tony@rhylonline.com>
>Gave us:
>
>> No doubt you are both clued
>>up enough to see that here there's no mention of testing - so all that
>>is required is a declaration (in the "Technical File - held by the
>>manufacturer/importer) that the equipment/item been designed to conform
>>with the relevant directive(s).
>
>
> Yes, dip****. However, when a non-conformance is found by a
>customer or other party, and is reported, you can bet your sweet ass
>that bloody england won't be allowing it past the docks once they get
>wind of it.

God, you are thick. If it's found by a customer then it's already past
the docks. I know the question is a little beyond you, but to whom does
the customer report it? BSI? DIN? Of course not - he returns it to his
supplier who passes it back up the supply-chain to the manufacturer - in
practice, depending on the unit cost it's likely to be written off and
re-supplied.

And another question....Is a customer likely to pay the not
inconsiderable cost of testing for conformity? If you suggest "yes" you
don't have a clue about the cost of conformity testing.

Have you ever been to Felixstowe (or any other container port) ?
No?.... It figures,,,,

Have you ever had something tested for conformity? Have you a clue how
much it costs? If you put your brain into gear you would figure out for
yourself that is the reason why actual testing is NOT required - simply
a declaration that the item is *designed* to conform.

Have a read through ISO9000/9001. That is the relevant conformity
standard - and you'll note that there is nothing about conformity
testing in there.
--
Tony Morgan

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:33:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <Tony@rhylonline.com>
Gave us:

>God, you are thick. If it's found by a customer then it's already past
>the docks.

Dumb****. Notice that what I was talking about is how things get
held at docks. ONCE the CUSTOMER finds a non-compliant product, he
can attempt resolve with the supplier, or declare the non-conformity
to the agency involved, and further shipments get held at the docks,
you ****ing retard. I said nothing about the one(s) found by a
customer. The customer or end user is the factor here that finds the
error. That REQUIRES and implies that some did make it into
distribution, dumb****.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:33:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <Tony@rhylonline.com>
Gave us:

>And another question....Is a customer likely to pay the not
>inconsiderable cost of testing for conformity? If you suggest "yes" you
>don't have a clue about the cost of conformity testing.

You're a ****ing retard. I never said anything about the customer
paying for a god****ed thing.
>
>Have you ever been to Felixstowe (or any other container port) ?

You are about as ****ing retarded as it gets.

>No?.... It figures,,,,

The multiple extra periods here, and the string of commas prove your
stupidity. You figure nothing. You figure into nothing as well. You
are useless.

You claim to be an engineer? You one of those young punks with your
pants down past your asscrack? You sure have their mentality.

"Bobbie" <bobbie4R3MOV3TH1S@shaw.ca> wrote in message
news:pan.2007.01.01.08.33.40.771017@shaw.ca...
> While taking a break from performing an interpretive dance of 'Flight of
> the Bumble Bee', Dr. GroundAxe wrote:
>
>> Rexunrex******.com wrote:
>>> I predict that HDDVD/Bluray will suffer in a prolonged coma, probably
>>> for the next 5 years. It may never wake up at all and may even prove to
>>> have been stillborn all along.
>>>
>>> There are 7 excellent reasons:
>>>
>>> 1. DVD is, exactly like VHS, "good enough", cheap, and ubiquitous. Even
>>> playing on my computer, the video and audio are crisp.
>>
>> Idiot. Why develop any new technology then? If what we have is 'good
>> enough'
>
>
> Ummm. Except for one problem. DVD was a very noticeable improvement over
> VHS and S-VHS. HD-DVD / Blue-Ray isn't all that noticeable of an
> improvement over DVD. If marginal improvement drove innovation then S-VHS
> would have replaced VHS and Digital Compact Cassette would have replaced
> the conventional cassette.
>

You jest of course. Bluray (I haven't seen a HD DVD production yet) is a
noticeable improvement (provided the source material is capable of the
format). I have noticed that the last two DVDs that I have bought have been
presented in letterbox format rather than anamorphic widescreen. If I had a
suspicious mind, I would suspect the DVD producers of deliberately
downgrading the quality just as Sky has from the tail end of last year
(presumably to move people onto their HD service).

>>
>>>
>>> 2. The HDDVD & Bluray hardware including monitor, video card, and drive
>>> are hyperexpensive and beyond the means of most people. The minority of
>>> newly-rich people and obsessive gamers cannot support this technology.
>>> The only hope for HDDVD was the Microsoft $200 USB drive, but without a
>>> good ripper program to let the consumer avoid buying a new monitor &
>>> video card, even that is useless.
>>
>> DVD cost a fortune when it forst came out. Early adopters pay through
>> the nose. This is not news.
>
> But again, most everyone who updated their video collection from VHS to
> DVD isn't going to run out and replace their players and DVDs just for a
> marginal at best improvement in picture and audio.
>

But most people didn't upgrade their VHS collection (unless the production
was something really good). As I said given the proper source material the
improvement gain on picture is much more than just marginal. Audio is
another matter as a 1.5 Mbps DTS DVD is pretty amazing already.

>
>>>
>>> 3. The Bluray-HDDVD war has only just begun. Expect 2 to 5 years for it
>>> to be resolved.
>>
>> 6 months should see a clear winner emerge
>
> Won't be settled that quickly.
>
> HD is backed by Toshiba, Microsoft, NEC and Sanyo.
> Universal Studios is currently the only movie production company to solely
> back HD-DVD
>
> Blu-ray has of course Sony & Philips the original co-creators of Compact
> Disc as backers. Blu-ray also has Apple Computer, Panasonic.
> Dell strongly backs Blu-ray:
> http://www.dell.com/content/topics/g...us&l=en&s=corp
> HP has shifted from solely supporting Blu-ray to supporting both but with
> a preference for Blu-ray
> Sony owns a movie studio. Walt Disney, MGM and 20th Century Fox are solely
> supporting Blu-ray
>

Blu-ray may have had a head start as blu-ray players (and recorders) have
been available in the UK for a couple of months. However, it may be that
the war degenerates into the DVD-R and DVD+R war which has largely petered
out as drives capable of handling either are now almost universal. There is
nothing to prevent players (and recorders) appearing that will handle either
format, but in the early stages the stake holders may refuse to licence
hardware that can handle the competing format.

>
>>
>>>
>>> 4. Actual movie theaters are far better pictures than HDDVD or Bluray.
>>> Even the low-end digital cinema projectors have a 2048-pixel wide
>>> image. Compare a $4 matinee ticket to the insane cost of HDDVD & Bluray
>>> hardware -- even the game systems are expensive. If I'm going to spend
>>> a crapload of money, I'd rather it be toward LASIK treatment or a very
>>> good pair of glasses, than on computer hardware or a game console.
>>
>> Dickhead
>
> I've only got a very few movies that picture clarity and detail are the
> centre point. Most of my movies as suitable in glorious 525 line NTSC. I
> don't feel the need to upgrade just for the sake of upgrading.
>

Movies are still unable to utilise the reproduction capabilities of DVD
(though a few made directly from 65mm negatives have come somewhere close).
Only video originated material is fully able to expolit DVD - and then only
from professional cameras. The one advantage that movie originated material
has on 625 disks is that it occupies almost half the space of video,
something that is far less true on 525 line disks because of the 3:2
pulldown that has to be used.

>>
>>>
>>> 5. DVD's rippability is perceived by a certain percentage of consumers
>>> as a precondition for purchasing. Lack of it makes HDDVD/Bluray a
>>> non-starter. No one wants to do business with Scrooge companies that
>>> invent nasty DRM like AACS, let alone cave in to terrorist
>>> organizations like the RIAA and MPAA and cower at their feet.
>>
>> Nonsense
>
> Nonsense? The AACS consortium didn't even bother to realize that by coming
> up with a late to the party copy protection scheme called HDCP, they've
> practically relegated TV's like my year old Toshiba 16:9 HDMI equipped set
> to the trashbin. See, the HDMI specification has already been out for just
> over 5 years. All sorts of manufacturers have been building sets that are
> fully HDMI compliant. But now because of the AACS and their insistence of
> the modification of HDMI with the inclusion of the HDCP scheme means that
> HDMI has been broken. What's to stop these consortium's from changing
> standards mid-stream again?
> Nice thing about all of this is the coding for HDCP isn't allowed to be
> carried in flashrom or other modifiable/readable media. It must be mask
> programmed into the decoder. So again, if the consortium decides they need
> to change something in the coding, looks like you'll be outta luck.
>
>

Copy protection is a controversial issue. HDCP was included in the original
HDMI specification, but it is now a revised version that has been deployed.

The situation is worst that you state, because the new blu-ray and HD DVD
media are going to require to be activated before you can play them (It has
even been said that you are going to have to activate them every time you
play them, but this seems to be overkill, and I suspect is scaremongering).
The disk producers have stated that they reserve the right to deactivate any
disk they *believe* to have been inappropriately copied.

I personally would love to see the whole DRM issue collapse in on itself,
but this will only happen if the consumer puts his foot down with a firm
hand. But it just isn't going to happen. Even CDs these days have copy
protection, but has that stopped the consumers buying them?

>
>>
>>>
>>> 6. Since the US Treasury just announced that the USA is in fact
>>> bankrupt, and the dollar is ready to crash anyway, it is only a matter
>>> of time before this suppressed news reaches the already-frugal buying
>>> public in the USA. When it does, and they lift their heads out of the
>>> sand, people are not going to rush to buy luxuries. It will be 5 or 10
>>> years before the economy recovers, if it ever does. Source:
>>>
>>> http://www.financialsense.com/fsu/ed...2006/1217.html
>>
>> Wow, I'm convinced
>>
>>>
>>> 7. Better technology is always coming. You may have noticed the stories
>>> on Digg/Reddit about the man who has a patent on a 100GB CDROM, or
>>> about the holographic DVD. By the time the HDDVD/Bluray conflict is
>>> resolved, people may no longer need them! Example source:
>>
>> Vapourware.
>
> Lemme see, I can go into FutureShop today and get a 5 GB SD card for
> about $40. Two years ago a 256MB card would have cost over $100.
> I can see in 5 to 10 years flash type storage being up to 100 to 200 GB
> and selling for a lot less than what the 5GB costs today.
>
> Hitatchi and Toshiba both have commercially available 1TB 3.5 inch hard
> drives. I can get a 100 GB Maxtor for less than $80.00. I can see a 10TB
> hard drive on the market in less than 2 years.
>
>
> This means that the debate over DVD/HD-DVD/Blu-ray may already be a thing
> of the past.
>
> Can you imagine how simple movie distribution would be in the near future?
> You go to the video store with your little 20 GB SD card and the account
> card from you video player. The account card would be used to encrypt the
> movie so that the SD card is only readable and playable on the video
> player that your account card is assigned to. If copies of your movie are
> found to be floating around on the Internet, watermarks injected into the
> video and audio will enable the movie to be tracked so far back as to the
> last person who purchased the movie from an authorized stream vendor.
>
> If you want packaging to go with your movie for that old time authentic
> feel, these can be printed on site for a nominal fee.
>
> The only thing holding a scheme back at the moment is the cost of the
> media. Optical wins at the moment, but how much longer can it hold on?
>

It used to be held that any new media that the market accepted had a 30 year
life. 78s lasted about that time. LPs, CDs and VHS all appear to have had
a similar life. But it looks like DVD may not even manage 20 years. Such
is the march of progress. The problem can only get worse.
>

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 13:24:20 -0000, "M.I.5?"
<no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> Gave us:


>It used to be held that any new media that the market accepted had a 30 year
>life. 78s lasted about that time. LPs, CDs and VHS all appear to have had
>a similar life. But it looks like DVD may not even manage 20 years. Such
>is the march of progress. The problem can only get worse.
>>
>

Someone so knowledgable. Yet you left out Laser Disc completely,
and it had a twenty year tenure, though it did not penetrate all
consumer markets like LPs or VHS did. Much less DVDs. They took off
and even astounded the forecasters.

LD was expensive so it left out an entire market segment.

I'd bet that Pioneer nd many others would tell you they were happy
with its success however. Many of the same companies that got started
in LD are the companies that are now producing our DVDs and HD DVDs,
etc.

JoeBloe left this is his trousers:
> On 31 Dec 2006 18:39:08 -0800, Rexunrex******.com Gave us:
> >
> >5. DVD's rippability is perceived by a certain percentage of consumers
> >as a precondition for purchasing.
>
> You're an idiot. Property protection is in your future. Get used
> to it, you pirate sounding ****tard.

Not quite. AACS is being dismantled right now. Did it happen faster
than the DeCSS being disembowled around 2000? I think it did - weren't
DVD's out for much longer before the crown jewels were hoisted? Nice
read here:

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=119871

PS - never ripped a DVD before so don't call me names. I have no
interest in pirating, and am only an amused spectator watching the
clown car parade.

-Gary

In message <g4anp2pru2bn0kdkebaotov8el8f8rdqre@4ax.com>, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes
>On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:33:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <Tony@rhylonline.com>
>Gave us:
>
>>God, you are thick. If it's found by a customer then it's already past
>>the docks.
>
> Dumb****. Notice that what I was talking about is how things get
>held at docks. ONCE the CUSTOMER finds a non-compliant product, he
>can attempt resolve with the supplier, or declare the non-conformity
>to the agency involved, and further shipments get held at the docks,
>you ****ing retard.

> I said nothing about the one(s) found by a
>customer.

You are most terminally stupid. You've just stated above "ONCE the
CUSTOMER". Then in the next sentence you say "I said nothing about the
one(s) found by a customer".

I don't know what medication you're on - but you really should give it
up !

>The customer or end user is the factor here that finds the
>error. That REQUIRES and implies that some did make it into
>distribution, dumb****.

And again !

And what does the "agency involved" mean? Certainly in the UK and
throughout the EU there is NO agency tasked with ensuring conformity at
the point of entry into a country.

The only organisations who are able to check for conformity are BSI and
(in most of the remaining EU countries) DIN. And their charges for
checking conformity are incredibly expensive - which is,by the way, the
reason that only a declaration of DESIGN to conform is required.Both
Dept of Trade & Industry and C&E certainly do NOT check for conformity -
nor do they (and never have) had the facilities to do so.

The Health and Safety Executive only get involved when there is an issue
concerning Safety At Work, or unsafe installations in the home - and
even then they do no go down the CE conformity route, but use the
Building Regulations administered and controlled by the Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister - and they, in turn, do not even mention CE
marking(s).

It's pointless responding to your ramblings - since that is all they are
as proven in the contradictions you have penned above !

And you call me a Dumb****?

--
Tony Morgan

In message <obanp25ct0ppk00ck2ei2nolf3619s6j16@4ax.com>, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> writes
>On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 09:33:09 +0000, Tony Morgan <Tony@rhylonline.com>
>Gave us:
>
>>And another question....Is a customer likely to pay the not
>>inconsiderable cost of testing for conformity? If you suggest "yes" you
>>don't have a clue about the cost of conformity testing.
>
> You're a ****ing retard. I never said anything about the customer
>paying for a god****ed thing.
>>
>>Have you ever been to Felixstowe (or any other container port) ?
>
> You are about as ****ing retarded as it gets.
>
>>No?.... It figures,,,,
>
> The multiple extra periods here, and the string of commas prove your
>stupidity. You figure nothing. You figure into nothing as well. You
>are useless.
>
> You claim to be an engineer? You one of those young punks with your
>pants down past your asscrack? You sure have their mentality.

You're clearly hearing voices when you suggest that I've claimed to be
an engineer.

And where did you get the idea that I'm young? More voices that you're
hearing?

I'd hazard a guess that I'm older than you - and by the rubbish you are
coming out with, I've a lot more experience in the field of QA,
conformity and related disciplines like ISO900X.

I'd give up this thread if I were you. Repeatedly you contradict
yourself and (if you aren't hearing voices in your befuddled brain) you
are now reduced to making things up and telling me that I have said
things that clearly I have not said.

--
Tony Morgan

"M.I.5?" <no.one@no.where.NO_SPAM.co.uk> wrote in message
news:459bab6c$1_1@glkas0286.greenlnk.net...
> I have noticed that the last two DVDs that I have bought have been
> presented in letterbox format rather than anamorphic widescreen.

What DVDs would those be?

> Movies are still unable to utilise the reproduction capabilities of
> DVD (though a few made directly from 65mm negatives have come
> somewhere close). Only video originated material is fully able to
> expolit DVD - and then only from professional cameras.

What in the world are you talking about? This is a ridiculous claim.
35mm film has vastly more resolution than video, even High-Def. DVD
barely captures a fraction of it.

On 3 Jan 2007 07:08:18 -0800, "Wayne McClaine"
<gary.griffith******.com> Gave us:

Your ****tard link is to a private chat forum? Whoopie ****in doo.
Like they are experts.
>
>PS - never ripped a DVD before so don't call me names.

**** you. Get your facts straight or stop expounding on an industry
in which you have no real clues.

> I have no
>interest in pirating,

Then don't use retarded words like "ripping"

BTW, "ripping" a movie IS pirating, dumb ass.

Discussing breaking encryption codes IS pirate behavior. SO you
lied about that as well.

> and am only an amused spectator watching the
>clown car parade.

We're all bozos on this bus. Some of us actually have a clue
though, and get to play with nice toys while we live in the day,
without stealing a god****ed thing along the way.

Life IS a parade, dip****.

On Wed, 3 Jan 2007 18:45:44 -0500, "Joshua Zyber"
<joshzyber@comcast.net> Gave us:

> even High-Def. DVD
>barely captures a fraction of it.


Though the bulk of your remarks were correct, this one needs
clarification.

A VERY good master of King Kong looks REAL good from HD DVD, and I
have the DVD and a non-up-converting player to compare with.

Though film is better, I wouldn't describe it as "barely captures a
fraction of it".

I say this because I also have Full Metal Jacket, which some of the
grainiest film stock I have ever seen. A bit disappointing.

Then, there is Blazing Saddles, which give one the impression that
they are looking right at film. It is clean and crisp. I was
impressed. I expected it to be bad, being from so for back.

I was also impressed with The Forbidden Planet.

SO I'd put that fraction, as you call it, at at least one third, and
more in some cases, depending on the source media.

An interesting, though not directly related is the story of how the
DVD of "The Lathe of Heaven" was compiled.

The BBC had problems with their archives from a fire or flood or
such, and lost a lot of material, including any prints they had of
this interesting movie from the Ursula LeGuinn book. Maybe just film
decay issues with that one archive/warehouse location

Some of the scenes are from VHS copies they dug up in search of a
complete master. One can see it in the video when watching the DVD.

Likely not a candidate for HD formats any time soon.

On 3 Jan 2007 07:08:18 -0800, "Wayne McClaine"
<gary.griffith******.com> Gave us:

>
>Not quite. AACS is being dismantled right now. Did it happen faster
>than the DeCSS being disembowled around 2000?

You're a bigger loser than I thought. AACS is NOT being "dismantled
right now" with any degree of success, nor will it be I'd bet.

DeCSS did NOT get disemboweled, you retarded twit, the keys got
incorporated into a software product unencrypted, which means it was
"let out". No person EVER broke it. Get your facts straight,
****tard.

No person has yet broken DigiCpher I or II yet either, and they have
been out for nearly a decade.

VideoCipher I and II have yet to be broken, and they have been out
since '82.

> I think it did

Since it has yet to even happen at all, your remark shows that
you've lost some of that not quite full from the start bag od marbles
of yours.

>- weren't
>DVD's out for much longer before the crown jewels were hoisted?

You're a god****ed retard. It was never broken. Do you have
problems in the bathroom like you do with language? I hope not.

Sheesh, get a clue!

JoeBloe wrote:
> On 3 Jan 2007 07:08:18 -0800, "Wayne McClaine"
> <gary.griffith******.com> Gave us:
>
>
>>Not quite. AACS is being dismantled right now. Did it happen faster
>>than the DeCSS being disembowled around 2000?
>
> You're a bigger loser than I thought. AACS is NOT being "dismantled
> right now" with any degree of success, nor will it be I'd bet.

Boy, everybody read the article the day it happened, but NOBODY read the
next day's article, huh?...

Oh, well--Selective reality strikes again:
http://www.videobusiness.com/article/CA6403011.html

Derek Janssen (and five years from now...we'll STILL be getting posts
about "They cracked AACS! The revolution has begun! @_@ ")
ejanss@comcast.net