I may be kind of cynical, but it seems ot me the OLPC project is now saying they recognize a lower power, less expensive processor would be a major benefit to their stated goals...but they can't (or really don't want to) adopt it anyway unless Microsoft® gives them the "okay", since they've effectively abandoned already-capable-of-running-on-ARM Linux for Microsoft.
Excellent, thank you. Sounds like all of the major browsers but IE, Chrome, and Konqueror ought to support it one way or another then, assuming Firefox 3.1 comes out before everyone gets bored of the idea...
I've been wondering - can anyone confirm whether or not Safari 4 will correctly handle the same Ogg Vorbis/Theora <audio>/<video> tags that Firefox 3.1 hypothetically will (assuming it is ever released[1]...) if one has installed XiphQT?
[1] Yes, yes, I know that eventually, someday, Mozilla Corporation will reach a release for Firefox 3.1. I think they just bit off way more than they could metaphorically chew and the unceasing stream of delays is making me all antsy here...
(Moral: Never agree to a feature plan bigger than your head?)
The "well, when everybody is using it there'll be too many of them for Microsoft to bother to sue, so go ahead and use mono/.net everywhere!" argument also sounds a lot like the "too big to fail" business method (i.e. "if we make ourselves big and pervasive enough, we'll be too big to be allowed to suffer consequences no matter what happens in the real world" schtick we're seeing here in the US a lot these last few months...)
Just doesn't seem like a sound argument in either context.
Or perhaps I'm just insane[1].
[1] - okay, I know, not necessarily an "or" situation...
"[...]failure to show significant market share growth."
Thing is, most of the time when I see these "market share" figures it turns out to be measured by revenue from new sold units during the most recent [quarter|year|whatever].
Someone erasing their "Windows 2000" system and turning it into a Linux server doesn't show up at all on this measure. Someone who has to "upgrade" their Windows server repeatedly while their Linux box sits and runs without needing any additional spending on it distorts these numbers, as do the people who spend twice as much on each server due to software licensing fees.
This is going to be even more distorted if they're specifically talking about non-server "market share", since it's so hard to find pre-installed Linux desktop systems most of the time. I have a suspicion that a lot of Linux desktop machines - even the NEW ones - came with "lowest-common-denominator" Windows OS and were subsequently wiped and replaced with a Linux of the installer's choice rather than showing up as an explicit "linux desktop" purchase somewhere.
This is an element of what is also sometimes known as "percussive maintenance". When you have a computer that refuses to work correctly, often the first thing one does is to kick it angrily. If even after going through the usual support voodoo it still doesn't work, you "re-boot" (i.e. "kick it again") it.
On unreliable platforms, this may be the preferred way of dealing with problems.
"OGG does not imply Theora. Theora is simply a free codec that can be stuffed in an OGG container."
Actually also a good point - Theora is intended to be a sort of "lowest common denominator" format as far as I can tell. There's nothing stopping them from using it as a stepping-stone to get support for the <audio> and <video> tags and the Ogg container format, and then adding Ogg/Dirac, Ogg/Speex, etc. support in later revisions.
...of "There Can Be Only One, and it's Adobe® Flash®!"/"'Ogg' sounds stupid!" posts...
I can't say I necessarily care for their implementation of the <audio> and <video> tags in the HTML 5 proposals, but at least this'll give a plugin-free and license-fee-free way of doing audio and video in Firefox and Opera...and supposedly Safari.
Of course, Safari only supports "Apple Quicktime" as usual, but I'm guessing that installing XiphQT would let it work with the same media as Firefox and Opera...
I imagine the DirectShow plugins for Ogg Vorbis/Theora might eventually solve the problem for those who insist on using IE, too, if Microsoft ever catches up to HTML5.
Maybe I'm just cynical ("maybe"?) but it seems to me that now, by waiting until the last moment to "help", they've still effectively prevented most Linux users (and Mac? Not sure about Mac...) from being able to watch their proprietary feed, while retaining the ability to point to the fact that they did anything at all to say "See how helpful we are?"
Perhaps even more than 10-15% when you are talking about something with a strong "build-it-yourself" element to it like a "virtual world". The proportion of people on Linux and the "Think Different®" Mac crowd who are interested and willing to put in some time and effort helping to build up a virtual world is probably a lot higher than you find among people on the "default" platform, who largely seem to be looking for more finished "canned" entertainment.
What the poster is saying is that "PocketSphinx" voice-recognition software appears to work and is cross platform, and that they are using it as part of their Telephone/Voice-Over-IP platform.
Still, I agree it would be nice if someone had a link to actual tutorial information on getting some version of Sphinx to run...
"The whole gift card/prepaid "value" card thing is a gigantic scam."
What gets me is that it's effectively a way for marketers to convince people to trade nice, clean cash that you can exchange for whatever good or service you want, in exchange for the same cash value with what amounts to a sort of restrictive End-User License Agreement attached to it (saying that "this money may only be exchanged for ScamCo® products or services". Sometimes there are even expiration dates or "service fees" associated with some of them...)
"Restricted" money ought to be less valuable than unrestricted money. If there was a genuine discount (e.g. pay $45 and get a "$50 Gift Card" for ScamCo® products) I could understand the appeal - in that example, the company would be paying YOU in exchange for your cost in lost usefulness of the money by accepting the "license". I don't recall ever seeing it done this way, though.
Yeah - I read the description of the story and thought to myself "Right, and JK Rowling has written her last 'Harry Potter' book..."
Someone else can insert a reference to George Lucas here...
Their working hypothesis (spelled out on the linked page) is that early in the development of microbial life there is (they claim) a statistically relevant chance that microbes developed on either Earth or Mars could have survived transfer from one planet to another via "meteoric exchange", which there would appear to have been a lot more of back ~3.5billion years ago when the first signs of modern-style microbes appear in the geological record.
Their assumption is that regardless of whether microbial life originated on Earth and possibly got blown to Mars during a major meteor impact, or vice-versa, if there are microbes growing in both environments now they'll be related.
I was going to say that you don't necessarily need specific bases for DNA amplification - there are some "whole genome amplification" techniques now that use a mix of small "random" primers to get amplification of (hopefully) most or all of the DNA in a sample rather than just one gene.
However, the description of the project does explicitly say they're planning to try to amplify 16s ribosomal DNA sequences, which are very handy for phylogenetic analysis of known terrestrial prokaryotes:
"a set of DNA oligonucleotides that also universally detect ribosomal genes (906-922F=GAAACTTAAAKGAATTG and 1407-1391R= GACGGGCGGTGWGTRCA, where K = G or T, W = A or T, and R=G or A) but prime within the 519 to 1492 region amplifed in the first step will be used. "
I'm a bit skeptical of the "universality" of "universal" primers, especially as to their usefulness after ~3,000,000,000 years of divergence. On the other hand, unlike some of the previous tests a positive result from this experiment would be very unambiguous if they can rule out contamination.
That really has nothing to do with what I said - I'm comparing unauthenticated (self-signed) encrypted sites with unauthenticated UNencrypted sites (no certificate at all). Neither is more subject to the "man in the middle attacks" than the other (unless unencrypted sites are marginally more popular for this due to not having the hassle of setting up encryption).
The point is that encrypted but unauthenticated communications are at least secure from eavesdropping between the user and the site, giving it one layer of security (against what I presume is a much more common threat - traffic "sniffing" is much, much easier to accomplish than man-in-the-middle attacks).
The seatbelt in my car doesn't protect me from "terrorism", but I'm far more at risk of an automobile accident. I'm not going to stop wearing a seatbelt just because I don't also have armed anti-terrorism agents riding around in my backseat at the same time.
I wonder how difficult it would be to come up with a "mod_gpg" or something of the sort that would work in tandem with FireGPG or something similar. That might get around both Mozilla's new anti-self-serve-SSL campaign, plus technical problems like virtual hosts on the same IP address...
Slashdot Mirror
I may be kind of cynical, but it seems ot me the OLPC project is now saying they recognize a lower power, less expensive processor would be a major benefit to their stated goals...but they can't (or really don't want to) adopt it anyway unless Microsoft® gives them the "okay", since they've effectively abandoned already-capable-of-running-on-ARM Linux for Microsoft.
Excellent, thank you. Sounds like all of the major browsers but IE, Chrome, and Konqueror ought to support it one way or another then, assuming Firefox 3.1 comes out before everyone gets bored of the idea...
I've been wondering - can anyone confirm whether or not Safari 4 will correctly handle the same Ogg Vorbis/Theora <audio>/<video> tags that Firefox 3.1 hypothetically will (assuming it is ever released[1]...) if one has installed XiphQT?
[1] Yes, yes, I know that eventually, someday, Mozilla Corporation will reach a release for Firefox 3.1. I think they just bit off way more than they could metaphorically chew and the unceasing stream of delays is making me all antsy here...
(Moral: Never agree to a feature plan bigger than your head?)
The "well, when everybody is using it there'll be too many of them for Microsoft to bother to sue, so go ahead and use mono/.net everywhere!" argument also sounds a lot like the "too big to fail" business method (i.e. "if we make ourselves big and pervasive enough, we'll be too big to be allowed to suffer consequences no matter what happens in the real world" schtick we're seeing here in the US a lot these last few months...)
Just doesn't seem like a sound argument in either context.
Or perhaps I'm just insane[1].
[1] - okay, I know, not necessarily an "or" situation...
Cheney|Halliburton = Biden|RIAA
" A small trial in China showed a statistically and clinically significant difference in 30 day survival with LEAD."
Thing is, most of the time when I see these "market share" figures it turns out to be measured by revenue from new sold units during the most recent [quarter|year|whatever].
Someone erasing their "Windows 2000" system and turning it into a Linux server doesn't show up at all on this measure. Someone who has to "upgrade" their Windows server repeatedly while their Linux box sits and runs without needing any additional spending on it distorts these numbers, as do the people who spend twice as much on each server due to software licensing fees.
This is going to be even more distorted if they're specifically talking about non-server "market share", since it's so hard to find pre-installed Linux desktop systems most of the time. I have a suspicion that a lot of Linux desktop machines - even the NEW ones - came with "lowest-common-denominator" Windows OS and were subsequently wiped and replaced with a Linux of the installer's choice rather than showing up as an explicit "linux desktop" purchase somewhere.
Is that like "geominerology"?
(Not quite as bizarre as seeing "biogenetic plague" in a science fiction show once, though. "Is that like 'geo-petrified fossil'?"...)
This is an element of what is also sometimes known as "percussive maintenance". When you have a computer that refuses to work correctly, often the first thing one does is to kick it angrily. If even after going through the usual support voodoo it still doesn't work, you "re-boot" (i.e. "kick it again") it.
On unreliable platforms, this may be the preferred way of dealing with problems.
Actually also a good point - Theora is intended to be a sort of "lowest common denominator" format as far as I can tell. There's nothing stopping them from using it as a stepping-stone to get support for the <audio> and <video> tags and the Ogg container format, and then adding Ogg/Dirac, Ogg/Speex, etc. support in later revisions.
...of "There Can Be Only One, and it's Adobe® Flash®!"/"'Ogg' sounds stupid!" posts...
I can't say I necessarily care for their implementation of the <audio> and <video> tags in the HTML 5 proposals, but at least this'll give a plugin-free and license-fee-free way of doing audio and video in Firefox and Opera...and supposedly Safari.
Of course, Safari only supports "Apple Quicktime" as usual, but I'm guessing that installing XiphQT would let it work with the same media as Firefox and Opera...
I imagine the DirectShow plugins for Ogg Vorbis/Theora might eventually solve the problem for those who insist on using IE, too, if Microsoft ever catches up to HTML5.
DAMN YOU! (shakes tiny fist in impotent rage) You're right. That is better...
i think you're right, actually (not entirely sure, though).
Now if only Amazon's "Audible" service would ditch DRM we'd be in good shape.
Microsoft Mobile DRM, eh? Maybe they're planning to cough up a "Zune Phone" after all...
Maybe I'm just cynical ("maybe"?) but it seems to me that now, by waiting until the last moment to "help", they've still effectively prevented most Linux users (and Mac? Not sure about Mac...) from being able to watch their proprietary feed, while retaining the ability to point to the fact that they did anything at all to say "See how helpful we are?"
Well, why not? Isn't that what WINE is for?...
Perhaps even more than 10-15% when you are talking about something with a strong "build-it-yourself" element to it like a "virtual world". The proportion of people on Linux and the "Think Different®" Mac crowd who are interested and willing to put in some time and effort helping to build up a virtual world is probably a lot higher than you find among people on the "default" platform, who largely seem to be looking for more finished "canned" entertainment.
What the poster is saying is that "PocketSphinx" voice-recognition software appears to work and is cross platform, and that they are using it as part of their Telephone/Voice-Over-IP platform. Still, I agree it would be nice if someone had a link to actual tutorial information on getting some version of Sphinx to run...
What gets me is that it's effectively a way for marketers to convince people to trade nice, clean cash that you can exchange for whatever good or service you want, in exchange for the same cash value with what amounts to a sort of restrictive End-User License Agreement attached to it (saying that "this money may only be exchanged for ScamCo® products or services". Sometimes there are even expiration dates or "service fees" associated with some of them...)
"Restricted" money ought to be less valuable than unrestricted money. If there was a genuine discount (e.g. pay $45 and get a "$50 Gift Card" for ScamCo® products) I could understand the appeal - in that example, the company would be paying YOU in exchange for your cost in lost usefulness of the money by accepting the "license". I don't recall ever seeing it done this way, though.
I've been referring to it as "The Hitlery Channel" for years...
(Always remember: People are Lazy. Thinking is work.)
Yeah - I read the description of the story and thought to myself "Right, and JK Rowling has written her last 'Harry Potter' book..." Someone else can insert a reference to George Lucas here...
That's okay - Ekiga isn't supposed to require Gnome. Becoming a little more independent of Gnome might broaden its appeal.
Their working hypothesis (spelled out on the linked page) is that early in the development of microbial life there is (they claim) a statistically relevant chance that microbes developed on either Earth or Mars could have survived transfer from one planet to another via "meteoric exchange", which there would appear to have been a lot more of back ~3.5billion years ago when the first signs of modern-style microbes appear in the geological record.
Their assumption is that regardless of whether microbial life originated on Earth and possibly got blown to Mars during a major meteor impact, or vice-versa, if there are microbes growing in both environments now they'll be related.
I was going to say that you don't necessarily need specific bases for DNA amplification - there are some "whole genome amplification" techniques now that use a mix of small "random" primers to get amplification of (hopefully) most or all of the DNA in a sample rather than just one gene.
However, the description of the project does explicitly say they're planning to try to amplify 16s ribosomal DNA sequences, which are very handy for phylogenetic analysis of known terrestrial prokaryotes:
I'm a bit skeptical of the "universality" of "universal" primers, especially as to their usefulness after ~3,000,000,000 years of divergence. On the other hand, unlike some of the previous tests a positive result from this experiment would be very unambiguous if they can rule out contamination.
How can you possibly have spelled a simple name so wrong???
It's Arr Oh Ehn Pee Ay Yu El! Jeez!
(If there's anyone Linux users will be writing in...)
(Torvalds/Stallman 2008?)
That really has nothing to do with what I said - I'm comparing unauthenticated (self-signed) encrypted sites with unauthenticated UNencrypted sites (no certificate at all). Neither is more subject to the "man in the middle attacks" than the other (unless unencrypted sites are marginally more popular for this due to not having the hassle of setting up encryption). The point is that encrypted but unauthenticated communications are at least secure from eavesdropping between the user and the site, giving it one layer of security (against what I presume is a much more common threat - traffic "sniffing" is much, much easier to accomplish than man-in-the-middle attacks). The seatbelt in my car doesn't protect me from "terrorism", but I'm far more at risk of an automobile accident. I'm not going to stop wearing a seatbelt just because I don't also have armed anti-terrorism agents riding around in my backseat at the same time.
I wonder how difficult it would be to come up with a "mod_gpg" or something of the sort that would work in tandem with FireGPG or something similar. That might get around both Mozilla's new anti-self-serve-SSL campaign, plus technical problems like virtual hosts on the same IP address...