DSE

Not so. Blue absorbs the thermal energy in the air while pink diffuses and rejects it. The additional transfer of energy allows the blue parachute to have greater rigidity.

City government here inserted rules that prevent ANY county employee from being on phone while driving, hands-free or not. Only exclusions are emergency vehicles. First time caught-warning. Second time caught-termination of employment. http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_5737679

Oops, i just noticed that you're in Canada. Can I change my vote?

It shouldn't be illegal. Whether it's "de minimis" or not is not the point. The existing copyright laws made wholesale piracy illegal. The DMCA only served to criminalize users attempting to do things that they believe they have the right to do. . I disagree. DCMA is in place to help thwart the punks that illegally copy media and share it with a few hundred friends. You yourself say "Believe they have the right to do." They DO have the right to copy to an HDD. It just might not be as convenient as youd' like. Why should it be? What about the twits that copy movies and CD's, head to the local swap meets, and sell the copies out of the back of their cars on weekends? DCMA doesn't at all affect the guy who is copying movies to his home media center. Not at all, and likely never will. Additionally, while it is technically illegal to transcode media from one format to another, it's not necessarily the law that makes this an issue; it's the licensee's. If they choose to not encrypt, which a few record labels have now agreed to not do, and a couple small studios are experimenting with, then there is no DCMA. In other words, the *studio* makes th decision. In this thread, there are idiots that would make Valenti the bad guy, but the point being missed is that it's the Tom Cruises, George Lucases, James Camerons, Robert Redfords, Jon Carpenters, Steven Soderbergs of the world that are responsible. They kept Valenti in office because in spite of his personal convictions he lobbied on their behalf. MPAA is THEIR spokesperson. If they didn't care about who copies what, they wouldn't encrypt their films. Valenti spoke for me, just as the RIAA and NARAS are my spokespeople in the music industry. You'd do better to vilify me, because me, the artist, wants my work to be as controlled as it can be. My own view is that I don't care if you buy the CD once, you're then entitled to listen to it where you want, so long as you don't make another copy of it and email it to a buddy to "share." He then copies his/her buddy, and so on. Next thing you know, dozens, hundreds, or millions of people are listening to my music but I got paid .0562 (cents) for the one sale. Costs me around 100K to make a CD, but I only get to be paid a nickel for every 100 listeners? That's less than I make for a radio play. Go to Ebay. I guarantee you'll find at least ONE pirate copy of my music, and at least ONE copy of one of my visual works. Ebay gets a letter a week from my representatives. Yet there are those here that claim "it hurts no one to share with a few friends." I have locks on my home. My close friends know where the keys are. I choose to show them the hiding place. But when you copy my music and upload it to the internet, you've not only found out where I hide the key, you've placed a front page ad in the newspaper telling folks it's OK to come into my house and take what I've worked hard for. Yes, I'd like it if you could buy a download of my music and put it on your phone, iPod, computer, and stereo. But people have proven that they'll steal vs pay for something. You say Napster is an absurd comparison? It's absurd to think it's not. Dozens of non-encrypted options were available for low monthly, per-use, or temporally-based fees. Only three of them survived during Napster, Gnutella, Kazaa's reign. People would rather steal in the privacy of their homes instead of paying for something. So, locks have to be put on the content, or an acceptance that work will not be remunerated. Works not remunerated means it's not worth spending the $$ to produce it. Then you've got nothing good to listen to. "Sharing with a few friends" is exactly what is responsible for the copyright mess we have today. Not Valenti, not artists like me. Those that share are responsible. Hollywood, most producers, directors, artists, etc don't give a rats ass about the guy that copies a DVD to a portable device (I copy movies to stick frequently to watch on my PSP) but that's perfectly legal as an individual. As I say, the problem comes in when you're copying the work to share with others, and/or selling that movie out of the back of your truck at the flea market. HDCP; I'd wager less than .01%, and especially not many in for example, Oz, have experienced it yet. So, why not "get you started?" if you haven't experienced it? Do you measurebate? Someone who reads what another person writes and believes it, taking a position based on what you've read vs experienced? Thank god folks don't skydive that way, with this community's extremely varying opinions, we'd have a lot of dead skydivers, now wouldn't we? I wonder how many skydiving photographers wouldn't care if you copied their pictures and sent them to everyone you knew? The ones I know (Norman, McGowan, Jennings, Laszlo, etc) aren't gonna be too happy with you, and a couple of them make it pretty clear that they'll come after you. Is Michael Holmes a money-grubbing asshole because he carefully covered his copyrights? It's easy for non-creative people to get their panties in a wad over copyright issues, because they: a-don't understand the work and expertise it takes to create a work that others WANT to steal b-don't actually understand the laws, and absent laws, the inappropriate nature of what they do when they steal c-don't understand that just because something is intangible doesn't mean it's valueless. d-believe it's their right to do whatever they want with someone else' property. That's unfortunate. It's more unfortunate that the protections against theft have only been an inconvenience to those that are slightly more ethical/honest. Kinda like the locks on my doors. If a real bastard wants to get into my home or office, he's gonna do it. If a punk teenager wants to break in and steal trophies from my shelf tries, he's likely gonna think twice when he encounters my locks or alarm system. Anything more is either overkill or bluster. Copyright is about licensing/permissions. I (the artist) own the right to copy. you don't. Just because you buy a disc that contains the essence of my work doesn't mean you own my work. you merely have permission to listen/watch my work. Similar to "I, the homeowner, own the contents of what is in my house. You, the person I've given a key to, are welcome to come into my home. But having a key doesn't give you permission to steal my furniture and CD collection, nor screw my dog." It's been tried to allow consumers to be honest. If it worked, copyright protections wouldn't exist on products. Just like how it's gotten harder to shoplift due to electronic tags, the general public has shown that given the chance, they'll steal. If everyone was the same on the computer as they are in public, then porn wouldn't likely be the most trafficked commodity of the web. Nor would pirated software, nor pirated movies. It's already been demonstrated that the predominant uses of the internet outside of email, are transmission of adult content, and pirated content. It's changing with various destinations on the web, but this is one of the major points of impetus to remove the "free" from the web. Someone, somewhere, wants to be paid for all the stolen content. I'd hate to see the web no longer be free, but since society can't self-police...whaddaya gonna do? Do you leave your rig out at the DZ? Why not? Afraid it might get stolen? Even though you likely know EVERYONE at your DZ? Duhh...no brainer, yeah? And if it *is* stolen, who do you blame but yourself? Well...artists are tired of blaming themselves. And so they're doing something about it. Organizations like the MPAA, RIAA, and NARAS are the voices through which artists speak. Those that have EVER registered a copyright, raise your hands, please? Vilify me if you want, I can take it. What is amusing is how logical points seem to turn into "fuck you." Actually, when it comes to piracy, I'm already being fucked, thank you very much. Here is a link to a pirated CD of mine... There are two currently on Ebay. Can't help but wonder if the buyer will know it's pirated? "We DO NOT sell Imports, Copies, DVD-R, Bootlegs, etc. Every DVD we offer is sealed, brand new, factory shrink wrapped. We sell the real deal." says the seller. It must be true, it's in writing! On the internet! Grue, I'm really sorry your dad is maybe having a hard time as a "film maker." Bob, I'm sorry you find it inconvenient that the law exists, even though it prevents nothing. I remember driving with you to Picton; you didn't speed at all. Why not? We both know the law to be absurd. Oh yeah...the cameras on the highway. Well...there are no cameras preventing you from bending copyright laws for personal use. The law is designed on a more grand scale. Should the laws be changed to say..."If you're just one guy, with the intent of copying to your HDD, then it's OK, but if you share with a friend or upload it, you get the death penalty?" C'mon...let's be realistic. We ALL break laws to a minor point. Why is it that breaking the law (which is actually very debatable as "breaking the law" when it's for personal-only use, read Paul Tauger's opinion on IP law and personal use) then why is it a big deal to copy media to a hard drive? BECAUSE NO ONE IS COPYING ONLY TO THEIR OWN HARD DRIVE, THEY'RE SHARING WITH FRIENDS. Which is when it becomes a big issue, not a small one. Kinda like speeding on a freeway vs driving 55 through a school zone during recess. So, as I may not like who Jack Valenti was, either as pres of the MPAA, or as a writer for Lyndon Johnson, or as a decorated airplane pilot in WWII, I do appreciate the fact that he stood in the front lines to protect what directors and producers asked him to protect. [edited for spelling]

wrong. "Fair Use" does NOT permit "sharing with close friends." Fair use must meet one of four components, and "sharing with close friends" isn't one of them. Fair Use (a legal term) embodies: Criticism Comment News Reporting Teaching Scholarship Research AND does not embue infringement of copyright (affecting the artist's right to control copies). There are ways of copying media to an HDD that do not involve decryption. I'm pretty familiar with how CSS, Macrovision, and newer forms of HDCP work, given that we replicate a few hundred thousand discs a quarter. Grue, I won't participate when the discussion is moronic with the "fuck you's" and "get the fuck out's." Either it's an intelligent conversation, or it's a conversation with a monkey. Copyright law is in place to stimulate creativity for the betterment of the general population. Sony vs Universal held that timeshifting is a legal action, and copying DVDs to an HDD is not timeshifting, it's changing the mechanical device. However, most legal pundits have taken the position (I believe rightfully so) that the practice of copying encrypted works to a home media system is lawful, until a duplication is made, at which point decryption must be undertaken. Still in that same vein, attorneys on both sides of the fence also agree that decryption for personal use, while illegal, is held as "de minimis" and not worthy of prosecution. The folks that get their shorts in a knot are the ones that are interested in illegal uses, such as "sharing with close friends." Hmmm....Napster was all about sharing with "close friends," all 12 million of them. Just because a "use" seems "fair" doesn't make it "Fair Use." Fair Use is for purposes outlined above, for the benefit of the general commonwealth, and not for the entertainment or individual benefit. Fair use is not static; it breathes and is opined as each specific case comes up. Some are foolish enough to believe that if no profit or revenue is involved, it's "fair." Try telling that to Norman Kent when you make a copy of his movie and "share it with a close friend." You might not have made money from the copy you gave away, but someone else other than yourself is enjoying the copy you made, and Norman doesn't get the benefit, let alone be aware of how many copies of his film are out there. Oh yeah, it's often argued that "No one would have heard of this artist/filmmaker/musician if I hadn't shared their work." Fine. Send a link. Send a watermarked copy of the picture. Invite them over to watch the movie or listen to the CD. Just don't make a copy of what you bought, and give it away to your buddy. Someone, somewhere, invested a lot of time, money, sweat, and creative energy into the product that you bought. They did so to not only release their creative muse, but also to chase their dream of making a living at what they do, and hopefully do best. When you make copies and "share them with close friends" you're making that dream a little more difficult to achieve. Just because slimeballs in China do it doesn't in any way, justify it being done on an individual basis. There are a lot of things other countries, cultures, and communities do that aren't acceptable in the general sense of humanity; it's a weak excuse at best.

' Bullshit. Maybe your father is a wanna-be filmmaker. If he does a film that has distribution, he doesn't get to make that choice, because NO distributor would allow it. Some folks just seem to feel that if someone creates something desireable, they no longer have the right to own/control it. That attitude is just plain stupid, IMO. "Copyright..." The right to copy. It's not your right, you didn't create the work. Always is retained by the artist. Until digital media came along, it was a fairly minor issue. Now that people can sit at home and rip off artists in the privacy of their own home while they jack off to the property of others without paying for the privilege, it's a huge issue. BTW, it's not illegal to copy a movie to your hard drive. Never has been. Making a replication or duplication of that movie is what is illegal. Uploading it to the internet is what is illegal. Study up on the law, and you might actually understand it. Decryption of copyprotections *is* illegal, but not illegal for certain uses, and storing the media to your home media center is one of those legal uses. Making a copy with the decrypted content is not. Either way, you're not gonna understand the points of debate here, so there is no reason to participate in it. For some, it's mental mastication. For others, it's merely cerebral cabbage. Enjoy.

Sounds like his last quote fit you well. it's not fallacious in any way. You've never owned a store-bought DVD, you just think you do. The content belongs to someone else. You have a shiny silver disc with a license to view the contents. You don't have the right to share the content with others, that would be stealing. Just because something is in the digital domain doesn't make it acceptable to copy it. You can think it's greed; I'll bet you have locks on your doors. Why? Because you want to have keys in your pocket? or do you want to protect the contents of your home and car? Is it greedy to want to protect what's yours, what you've worked hard to earn or create? Pirates cost the world well over a billion dollars each year. I guess I'm a greedy motherfucker too, because I want to protect my work from assholes that copy it and send it around the world. My income is entirely based on my creative ability. while you're coloring me with that brush, color guys like Joe Jennings, Mike McGowan, Norman Kent, Patrick Swayze, and just about every other cinematographer, musician, or artist with the same brush. We've worked hard to achieve the creative successes we've generated. It's exceptionally disheartening to find your work for sale on Ebay as pirated goods, or find your work in YouTube because some asswipe thought it might be fun to post it without your permission. Or to find some dickhead that copies your written works and posts them as though they were his own. The creative process is similar to raising a child in that it has to be nurtured and pulled along until it's finished and can stand on it's own. The artist is paid by sales of the creative work. In the case of Hollywood films, when pirates steal, it barely hurts Speilbergs, Camerons, Soderbergs, Carpenters...it hurts grips, best boys, DP's, electricians, costumers, set designers, prop masters, mixers, boom ops, distributors, etc. In the case of smaller works, every person who copied say..."Willing to Fly" that gave a copy to his buddy....stole $5.00 straight from Norman kent's pocket. Yes, I know the bullshit argument "Well, they probably wouldn't have bought the product anyway, so no one was really hurt." Fuck that, they're enjoying the benefits of the product regardless of whether they bought it or not. Gee..."I can steal this from my friend, because I wouldn't have bought it anyway, and I don't _think_ he'd mind if I took it." From Shakespeare to Amy Winehouse, artists have almost all worried about their rights to copy. With the digital age, many people believe they're entitled to copy whatever the hell they want. Take away the capital incentive, and art suffers. Even the Queen of Anne knew that back in 1700. Do copyright protections on media suck? Absolutely. They're invasive and a pain in the ass. I hate them, I hate what it costs to create/manage protections. But they're necessary to at least slow the stem of piracy/thieves. So are locks on doors. but most people have em....I wonder why? Vilify Jack Valenti all you want. Recognize that your life would be pretty damn boring without what his organization helped bring to you. I surely didn't like him, but very much admired him. He did a lot of great things. Personally, I think it's pretty twisted that someone would rejoice over the death of anyone like this. BTW, he didn't have a lot of money. He wasn't fighting for his money. He fought for his organization, for something he believed in. He may have been a prick, but he was a prick that was passionate about that in which he believed. If someone wants to be passionate about your right to steal, goodie for them. I'd rather admire the passionate prick that worked to defend my hard works. In closing, you obviously know nothing about the ratings process. Those that make film do, and we generally purposefully aim a film at a specific rating. Those that get caught up in the process and find they're unhappy? Usually it's a product of marketing hype, and rarely...that the producer or director simply is a moron that didn't do his/her homework

Good answer, IMO. Jack Valenti was pres of the MPAA for over 30 years. In his time, he helped make a lot of things happen, like rating systems that informed parents about film content. Digital media vexed him, and for the most part (remember that I make my living as a producer of audio and visual media) I agree with him. People that would say "I need to make a backup of my software/movie/music" and then let the "backup" live at their friends/relatives house...what is that about? Valenti made the comment of "If you buy a glass pitcher at the store and you break it a week later, do you go back to the store and request a free pitcher to replace it with? Of course not. You buy IT, you own IT, and not a copy of IT." He also popularized the phrase "Pigs eat, hogs get slaughtered." My fave? "Those that don't believe in intellectual property rights don't have any." He might have been a bit militant, but when one side of the argument has swung so far to the right, a good left is likely required.

Of course there will be a huge variety of camcorders between the XDCAM EX (Sony Broadcast division, priced around 9K) and the CX7 (Sony Consumer Electronics division, priced around 1,2K) just as there currently are a lot of cams in the mid-price range. HDV is still much a part of the pro-sumer line, and will be for a while. There is no point in anyone worrying the sky is falling on camcorders that use tape; there are pluses and minuses to all the formats and cams. I'm still using tape, and will for a while still. I'm also experimenting with a new RAM-based system that reads from USB2 on a cam, to see how that works out. Clunky/PITA in current form...but who knows where it might go. Expect to see at _least_ 10 cams between the CX7 and XDCAM HD EX over the coming 12 months.

Now that it's official, I can comment to a limited degree. First, it's in preproduction (this means beta-testing). Second, bitrate is variable depending on content up to around 16Mbps. Haven't jumped it yet, specifically forbidden from doing so based on previous uses of the camcorder. Other than requiring a behemoth of a computer to decode, this is a sweet offering in the low end. Can't tweak the color in post much due to low frame content, but it's a nice cheep n' easy cam to work with. You can put up to an hour on an 8GB card, and transfer it very fast to a computer via USB. No 1394 support. That stinks, because 1394 would be faster, but requires a higher cost. I don't believe you could transfer cam to cam, but perhaps you can find an adapter that will allow mini to mini, and find out. Cam to memstick would be quite easy/is quite easy.

Trust me, that's not so at all. You'll see MUCH worse RED footage coming from the shooters that can afford the cam and don't know how to use it. I blame Panasonic's DVX100 for allowing bad camera ops to have access to 24p, therefore giving 24p a bad name. That said, this short is just short of incredulous. In seeing the piece 3 times, there are very few faults to be found with the editing, none to be found in the camera acquisition. I have reservations as to how the company will play out, and not needing nor seeing the value in 4K right now, chose to not go there. Nice to be able to hire Peter Jackson to show the top-end quality of the camera, but the more important question is "what can everyone else do with it."

Been a tough one to figure here in Utah. First, an 18 year old kid goes on a rampage killing people in a mall. Flags at half staff. Then a former Congressman dies. Flags at half staff. Then the wife of a prominent Mormon church official dies. Flags at half. Cho kills students at college. Flags at half-staff. We need taller flagpoles or a revisit of the half-staff rules of order, cuz it's been the norm here for nearly 2 months now. Howzabout we just leave em' permanently there in honor of those who have died in Iraq, and put them back to full-staff when we have a president that doesn't need the distractions from policy?

yeah, but Natasha's not trying to become a coach. she musta had some good coaches though.

I wanna see that actually IN THE AIR. That mount would not manage the cam well at all. I have a goof pic of my F350 on my FTP, too.

Yes, thanks to Brooke/MB38, I got into the RED booth more than once. Impressive footage, but a bit misleading to suggest we were seeing actual 4K footage on the small screen they had. VERY impessive demo. RED still is an unknown quantity, IMO. It's popular, but also has the "real" shooters in the industry asking questions that are well-deserved. After seeing RED at Sundance Film Fest, seeing it at a few other locations, and seeing the latest incarnation at NAB, my team and I have decided to purchase the SI camera instead. More standardized, more "real" and ready to go in the next 30 days. RED is impressive, but untried. SI has been here for a long time, as has PS Teknic, and the guys at CineForm (codec provider) are old friends. CineForm 2K codec is already supported in many apps, and can be DPX straight to every app out there, where REDCODE isn't at all supported by any but Final Cut. I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing RED. Been in the industry a LONG time, and familiar with fads. RED may or may not be a fad. I'm not interested in finding out the hard way as I have so many times in the past.

anywhere riser slap can't get it. I lost mine on my 3rd jump (Bad body position, my fault, but bad location nonetheless)

I've posted several times on the HDDVD and BD differences, BD has been tested higher than 200GB, while HDDVD has (so far) max of 50GB in not-yet-available triple layer. BD is winning the battle thus far, but it's not over yet. Sony Vegas announced this morning, the release of a free update on May 1, for AVCHD support. I can't say more, but can say I'm pleased. AVCHD isn't HDV, but may eventually become as good as bitrates climb to the 18Mbps point. HDV is still the best option, and will be for a while, in an affordable range. XDCAM EX will be the next step for pros, but it's also gonna be around 9K.

I jumped a Stiletto 150 for a few jumps. It was brisk opening... It shut down nicely on landing so I did not have to run barefoot (don't ask), but it opened quick (gave me a sore neck because I was looking up like a dumbass to see the canopy open) (I am used to the soft Katana openings I guess) Now I know Norman Kent jumps a Stiletto with dacron lines that makes it even softer... You might want to ask PD for the linesets that Norman uses too, if the slider mod is not enough??? It's not just the Dacron lines that Norman uses to make the opening softer, he also has several other actions during deployment to keep it very, very soft. He discusses them in his camera camps. Most of his secret is how he is managing his body just before, during, and immediately after deployment to soften it. It works; I've tried his techniques. Takes some timing practice, but it works well.

Talking with our pilot today, his take is that as pilot of the aircraft, what he says is law. At our DZ, doesn't really matter, I guess, because that's simply the rule; Door mostly closed on takeoff due to the induced drag. he prefers the door completely closed, but is willing to allow slight opening for vidiots. Door is closed until around 5k, where it's partially opened again for vidiots, then closed again. Door isn't opened til jump run due to drag on our King, as per pilot's orders. It's not that hot in the aircraft, even in August when the temps are in the low 100's.

They are 18, 14, 13 and 17 months. What I regret is fighting with my ex husband in front of them. They heard him verbally assault me which is maybe why if I ever felt I was to lose it with them I would put myself in a timeout. Maybe I'm just sensitive to this subject because of my experiences but I still think the guy went on a tirade. Normal may have been the wrong word to use in my previous post. How about acceptable? It's not acceptable behaviour. We have a winner. "Acceptable behavior" is an acceptable term to my way of thinking vs "normal." Sounds like you're a super-human incredible parent if you never 'lost it' in front of your children. Of course he went on a tirade. While tirades may not be acceptable behavior, they're perfectly "normal." If more parents went on tirades from time to time, we might prevent some children from doing what they do sometimes.

Isn't the bottom line always be what the pilot prefers? Our pilots all want the door closed at least 3/4 on takeoff, but allow for 1/4 open so the vidiots can catch the takeoff.

All of us grew up with things that weren't healthy to see, hear, taste, touch, experience, feel, or particpate. Some grow up to be axe murderers, some grow up to be model citizens. Some people think that spanking a child is responsible for axe murders while others feel that not spanking a child is responsible for axe murderers. Me...? I got my ass whipped regularly, sworn at on severe occasion, and thought my nickname was "goddamnit" for the first few years of my life. My child? Spanked on occasion, called names and yelled at on heated occasion, and she is a model adult, more mature than most of her peers. If you've never said anything to your children that you don't regret, either reality is in question, or your children are too young to inspire tremendous anger, hurt, or other challenged state of emotion.

Quote That's the problem. People grow up with it and think it's normal behavior... it's not. Quote How do you know? Most people I associate with believe it's reasonably normal behavior given the circumstances. Maybe it wasn't normal for *you.* Given the responses from several people here, it's quite normal to have your parents lose it occasionally. Ever been in the middle of a nasty custody or visitation situation? It's a challenge being "normal." Had your kids talk to you like you're a complete piece of shit, even if they've not known you for most of their life? It's even harder being "normal." While I personally don't care at all for Alec Baldwin (met and worked with the guy) I can't fault him for this crap being in the media, and I can empathize with the emotion that I'd suppose he was feeling. On the other hand, I believel his exwife is a vindictive, self-serving, uncaring bitch for having put his daughter in this situation by releasing the recording to the public. ALL OF US, particularly parents, have said things we don't mean during a heightened emotional state that we'd not like others to hear. Anyone who says they haven't is a liar.

IMO, it says more about Basinger for releasing it, than it does about Baldwin for saying it. My parents said worse to me, I'm sure most parents have; it's part of learning sometimes. Either way, Baldwin's comments in the media have been related to Basinger, not the children. His daughter will forever be remembered for this recording, and Basinger put her daughter in that situation, not Baldwin.

For me, digital storage has always been the norm. Yes, I've always got my tapes to turn to, but honestly never have once done it (since the advent of digital) in many years of production, both for HDCAM or DV. Even Beta SX media is stored on drives here, we find it cheaper to archive to HDD. But that's our workflow, so YMMV. Solid state is absolutely as trustworthy as tape, IMO. The codecs used today are small, an while challenging, they look very good. AVCHD at a bitrate of 12Mbps is very close to HDV at 25Mbps in visual quality, but it's a bitch to edit. That'll change, as I'd mentioned earlier. Here's my take...if you need a cam right this second, either buy HDV now, or buy a junker 109 to get you through the next year. By then, we'll have at least 8, and maybe 12 AVCHD camcorders on the market, plus every NLE will support AVCHD. I like my archives in HD, so that's my tool of choice. Again YMMV.