Maya is really coming out for linux? Can you please cite this? Inquiring minds want to know.
Actually, Maya has been running on Linux for quite some time. Since release 4.5 actually all 4 distributions are on "version parity", at least for the Complete version. I use it on an O2, on a PBG4 and on a dual-G4, and I've installed it on Linux and MS-Windows machines. People using it on O2s switched to Mac OS X machines just fine (3-mouse button quite necessary:-)), etc. Quite a few things are now written in Java, AFAIK: the IRIX version for example installs Java if you don't alread have it.
The free PLE version however only runs on Mac OS X and MS-Windows.
Re:Since when is sci-fi defined by films?
on
Science Faction
·
· Score: 1
Then there are other equally inspiring, phenomenal books that I'd think of as sci-fi but I'd rather not mention titles or authors, since a few people consider them sacred and get offended if others don't treat them as religion...
'real' VR devices existed before the holodeck
on
Science Faction
·
· Score: 4, Informative
From the article: when Star Trek's "holodeck" appeared, it bore no resemblance to anything tangible. These days it is known as the precursor of augmented/virtual reality applications such as virtual surgery or holographic simulation training programs
hmm...
In fact, although the holodeck-likeCAVE was introduced in 1992 - 5 years after ST:NG's debut, VR systems had been around a few years already.
recreational or competitive?
on
Sports Technology?
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think it makes a difference. I enjoy a lot of recreational sports (biking, windsurfing, rowing, sailing, running, downhill skiing, you know, the good ones:-)
In in practicing such recreational sports, I believe that technology can improve the experience, by providing more comfort for example:
a few years ago, due to back aches, biking was becoming less fun for me. So I got a Trek Y22 - not because it was carbon-fiber, but because I wanted a rear-suspension bike, and in 1997 there wasn't as much choice as nowadays (expecially at the lower end of the market). At clearance prices, it ran for $1000 and I did not mind having a cool bike...
So in this case I have to admit that technology has made biking very enjoyable again. But I had just as much fun, when I was younger and did not have back problems, with a 20-yrs old Legnano!
The USA is responsible for over 25% of the planet's pollution, its population being maybe 5%. So yes, if everyone behaved like the USA (or rather USA's government, which is believed by some of its citizens to be democratically elected...but I digress) then the only solution would be to run off the planet. Fortunately most of the world's governments are less corrupted on this particular issue.
So if there is anything to be worried about, it is not space race (that's interesting, mind you). It's in what conditions we leave this planet to our children. Given USA's history on environmental issues, one can't be optimistic about it. I guess it would not sound strong enough to claim to be the greatest in something non-violent, right?
Go back to play with your computer now, and pospone the issue until your grandchildren will be in charge... the only hope is for some other kind of super-power to take charge in less 'dominatory' fashion.
>Is there anyone on Slashdot that hangs onto Windows for anything other than games?
Work.
Nope.
If at work they told me I must use MS-Windows, I'd quit. Done it before. The good news of being an IT professional is that you still can avoid MS products completely.
OK, so from what I understand, the whole point is that the stations using "Retransmission Consent" make even more money, because they not only get money from ads, but also from the cable operating company, which in turn charges customers.
In the end, everyone benefits except the customers... since obviously stations care less and less about broadcast, several stations will move to cable-only, or neglect having decent over-the-air broadcasting. Customers have to pay a montly fee for what could be freely available through broadcast. Doesn't it... suck?
What I still do not understand is why there is no company able to make money in this system using an ads-only revenue model (like elsewhere outside the U S of A) - and there are quite successful companieselsewhere which profit from such model.
The ads subsidize the cost of the cable channel. HBO does not run ads, they also charge much more than the average cable channel.
hmmm... I'd almost believe this to be the only reason, but there are several channels which broadcast over VHF/UHF as well as cable and satellite, and you don't pay anything to receive via VHF/UHF (and that also has operational cost). So apparently, the free broadcast works for them just as well as cable.
Besides, in every other country I've been in 3 other continents (OK, no more than about 30 countries, but still) cable users are in % much less than broadcast, and satellite channels with lots of ads are free, unencrypted (that is, you just have to buy the receiver).
I almost see a parallel with USA being one of the very few countries tying cellphone users to year-long contracts or short-lasting (and too expensive) pre-paid minutes, not to mention the pay-to-receive model, which AFAIK only Ukraine and USA use.
But I still can't pinpoint the origin of the problem, and why customer don't complain to such a bad treatment.
I honestly never understood why so many people in the U S of A are willing to pay twice for the same product:
first, pay a cable company to deliver TV programs
second, endure all the commercials (a disgusting percentage of most cable channel's time is commercials) which pay for the TV channels anyway
I never watched sat TV in north-America, but I guess something similar happens there as well - ads+monthly fee. Or am I mistaken there?
Why no free channels + lots of commercial (like in most of countries I've seen in the other continents) or public/paid channels with little to no commercials?
I'm not trying to be rhetorical, I'd really appreciate a psychological insight in such a situation. Thanks!
The problem in Mac-land right now is that while they have superior software (in just about every thing I can imagine) the hardware is so far behind....
Yes... and no. There are very useful things that can be done on Mac HW that are either impossible or very uncommon to do on x86 HW. For example,
target-mode booting to access a Mac's internal HD. Macs have that options since the first powerbooks (called SCSI Disk Mode at that time). Why is this not possible on an x86 box?
standard gigabit ethernet on Powerbooks and PowerMacs
Professional (studio) microphones usually need phantom power (11 - 48 volts) on a balanced type connector (XLR for example), usually monophonic.
Bias voltage (1.5 - 9V) is used with small, portable microphones like the ones people connect to portable minidisc recorders or professional tape recorders. All portable devices of that kind I've used have it on the mic input port - unbalanced stereo 3.5mm connector type.
Professional (stage) microphones are either passive (like the omnipresent SM58) or active - in which case they likely have built-int batteries.
If Apple allows a microphone to be connected to the iPod, it'll likely be of the 2nd type.
More info at Shure for example.
> the monospace-char-based interface shown in the picture you reference, running under DOS
you know, now that I am looking at that picture again, I wonder whether that wasn't pixel-based too (CGA or Hercules?). Or were italicized characters available in character mode? I was still using 8-bit machines at that time, so I did not have the thrill of using char-based interfaces on PC since I jumped straight to an Atari ST (a Mac was way above my budget back then...
Speaking of the Atari ST, it was not until 1986 when I could try the native version of MS Write on it, of all things (no MS Word there)!
Sadly, I could not afford a Mac until the Plus dropped to affordable levels on the educational pricelist... and the Atari ST had a mighty 640x400 resolution:-)
Microsoft Word broke that mould. It derived its heritage from, um, what WAS it called? Bravo? on the Alto. Its design center assumed multiple typefaces, proportionally spaced fonts, and full-bore true WYSIWYG screen displays.
AFAIK mplayer should be able to play anything that any open source app can play. There is an mp4player that will play MPEG-4 compliant video/audio streams.
Im not sure about the QT6 MPEG-4 codecs.
The MPEG-4 codec in QT6 is simply an ISO-compliant MPEG-4 codec (as from this page). If mplayer plays RTSP/RTP streams (not files!) and if it complies with MPEG-4 standards, it should play them. That's what I was asking - since I don't use mplayer myself. Does it or does it not?
Does mplayer use QT-compatible codec APIs or does it reverse-engineer the codecs? Since you mentioned that it plays all QT formats except Sorenson-3... does it play On2, ZyGoVideo, etc. (these are just a few examples of codecs used with QuickTime) encoded videos?
I also still see no answer about the Sorenson-1 video codec used by mplayer. Has it been reverse-engineered to be used on Linux? Because if that is so, I could recompile it on IRIX and have some good use for it. Or does it simply use the x86 binary codec as distributed with QT?
And to the MacOSX thing. Pffft.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. Is Pffft=Perfectly futile for fun-impaired types?
Has MS released a version of WM player for MacOSX yet?
Good question. I suppose so, since there is something called "Windows Media Player for Mac OS X" which Micro$oft released sometimes in January this year. (hope this answer helps: I do not have a detailed answer because I do not use Micro$oft products at work: being a computer science professional, I would consider such use a moral equivalent to prostitution; supporting Micro$oft products, a moral equivalent to drug dealing).
mplayer will play windows media files (as well as Real video/audio files).
It will also play every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. It WILL play V1, as it was REd and released.
So Sorenson 1 has been reverse-engineered? Interesting...
You mention every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. Does it mean that mplayer plays MPEG-4 compliant video and audio as well, as for example encoded by QuickTime 6 MPEG-4 compliant codecs? I did not know there was a standard MPEG-4 video and audio playback codec on Linux. Even more interesting.
Does it handle streaming Quicktime.movs encoded in MPEG-4 or in H.261 or H.263 such as streams reflected by DSS or QTSS from multicast tools?
So linux/unix users can play everything but V3 sorenson, so both Real and WMV are more interesting than quicktime.
Sorry, but I have to correct you on this: Linux/Unix users except Mac OS X users can play everything but V3 Sorenson, since on the Mac OS X Unix platform all of these are playable.
Why should MS-Windows media or whatever it is called be more interesting to Linux users than QuickTime? Has M$oft released a player for Linux? That would be very surprising!
Why doesn't slashdot staff advocate a vendor-independent standard like MPEG-4 instead? I don't see Real or MS Media being any more open-source-friendly than QuickTime, as far as codec specs goes.
(failed to log in before, so I resubmit not to remain AC)
You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many,
many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for
free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no?
But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.
If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.
If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.
Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.
Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.
The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.
Unfortunately, I don't personally know any software professional who can work and live 100% M$-free.
Do you know any GNU-Linux user or software developer who can get rid of all M$ products - no M$Windows, no M$Office, nothing even remotely installed on their PC, nothing ever paid to M$? Unfortunately, I don't personally know anyone in this situation.
So here's the problem: can you work 100% Apple-free in the software industry? Yes. 100% GNU-free? Yes. 100% M$-free? very difficult.
America seems to have chosen WiFi over CDMA anyway - and they're leading the world with THAT, no doubt about it
It's my impression that Wi-Fi and cellphone technologies are quite orthogonal: how would you do for example Wi-Fi in a car at 150km/h or in a boat 20 km from the coast, or from your smaller-than-palm device? ANd what would be the use?
GSM won for 1 reason: it's the standard: across countries in 4 out of 5 continents, across all but 10% of companies, across almost all cellphone makers. It's over, CDMA, sorry. Until one can have 1 single phone with CDMA working in 5 continents, it won't win.
What this guy was doing is far worse, he deserved what he got.
Would you approve if Italy took this pilot and condemned him for life for slaughtering twenty people (luckily for him there would be no death penalty in the EU) ? Would you approve if they lured him somehow out of US territory and then do whatever they pleased with him?
Okay, I'm starting to understand your point of view now. When you say "non-standard," you really mean, "I've never heard of it." Torx T-10 and T-15 screws are very much standards; they're just different standards from the ones you're familiar with.
Furthermore, Torx screws are used, among others, by Philips for some of their consumer audio CD players, and by Motorola for their cellphones (just 2 randomly chosen examples of gadgets I had to open recently). Any decent electronics store (with no Apple-related parts or tools) will carry Torx screwdrivers. If you don't have the right tool, they're annoying. But I find them very robust for small-size screws and I suppose that's why they've been designed in the first place.
What happens though when all new CDs won't even play on a Mac?
AFAIK, they can not be called CDs at that point: Philips owns the copyright (together with Sony?) and didn't they sue some company recently for putting the audio CD logo on it, when it's not a CD audio anymore, because it can't be played back as such (on Macs for example)?
Should these 'CD-like' things now be called some other way?
It's almost like the original Pizza (i.e. the one made with fresh buffalo mozzarella, in a wood-oven etc) and the so-called 'Pizza' (i.e. what people eat in the US). Too bad noone can apply quality-control for products called that way on the west side of the Atlantic by companies and chains having about as much concern about customers as M$oft...
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, Maya has been running on Linux for quite some time. Since release 4.5 actually all 4 distributions are on "version parity", at least for the Complete version. I use it on an O2, on a PBG4 and on a dual-G4, and I've installed it on Linux and MS-Windows machines. People using it on O2s switched to Mac OS X machines just fine (3-mouse button quite necessary :-)), etc. Quite a few things are now written in Java, AFAIK: the IRIX version for example installs Java if you don't alread have it.
The free PLE version however only runs on Mac OS X and MS-Windows.
Not to mention Stanislaw Lem, Jules Verne and H.G.Wells.
Then there are other equally inspiring, phenomenal books that I'd think of as sci-fi but I'd rather not mention titles or authors, since a few people consider them sacred and get offended if others don't treat them as religion...
when Star Trek's "holodeck" appeared, it bore no resemblance to anything tangible. These days it is known as the precursor of augmented/virtual reality applications such as virtual surgery or holographic simulation training programs
hmm...
In fact, although the holodeck-like CAVE was introduced in 1992 - 5 years after ST:NG's debut, VR systems had been around a few years already.
For example, Lanier's VPL had the first commercial interface gloves (1984). head mounted displays (1987), and networked virtual world system (1989).
In in practicing such recreational sports, I believe that technology can improve the experience, by providing more comfort for example:
a few years ago, due to back aches, biking was becoming less fun for me. So I got a Trek Y22 - not because it was carbon-fiber, but because I wanted a rear-suspension bike, and in 1997 there wasn't as much choice as nowadays (expecially at the lower end of the market). At clearance prices, it ran for $1000 and I did not mind having a cool bike...
So in this case I have to admit that technology has made biking very enjoyable again. But I had just as much fun, when I was younger and did not have back problems, with a 20-yrs old Legnano!
Point iCab to it and let it download all of them to avoid having to click on each one...
The USA is responsible for over 25% of the planet's pollution, its population being maybe 5%. ...but I digress) then the only solution would be to run off the planet. Fortunately most of the world's governments are less corrupted on this particular issue.
So yes, if everyone behaved like the USA (or rather USA's government, which is believed by some of its citizens to be democratically elected
So if there is anything to be worried about, it is not space race (that's interesting, mind you). It's in what conditions we leave this planet to our children. Given USA's history on environmental issues, one can't be optimistic about it. I guess it would not sound strong enough to claim to be the greatest in something non-violent, right?
Go back to play with your computer now, and pospone the issue until your grandchildren will be in charge... the only hope is for some other kind of super-power to take charge in less 'dominatory' fashion.
Work.
Nope.
If at work they told me I must use MS-Windows, I'd quit. Done it before. The good news of being an IT professional is that you still can avoid MS products completely.
But Slashdot is not News for Geeks. It's News for Nerds. OK, so let's see if that old syllogism still works:
- Slashdot is News for Nerds
- Geeks don't use Safari
- Safari can be mentioned on Slashdot
No, it does not seem to work. Can't find the flaw thoughIn the end, everyone benefits except the customers... since obviously stations care less and less about broadcast, several stations will move to cable-only, or neglect having decent over-the-air broadcasting. Customers have to pay a montly fee for what could be freely available through broadcast. Doesn't it ... suck?
What I still do not understand is why there is no company able to make money in this system using an ads-only revenue model (like elsewhere outside the U S of A) - and there are quite successful companies elsewhere which profit from such model.
Why not here?
hmmm... I'd almost believe this to be the only reason, but there are several channels which broadcast over VHF/UHF as well as cable and satellite, and you don't pay anything to receive via VHF/UHF (and that also has operational cost). So apparently, the free broadcast works for them just as well as cable.
Besides, in every other country I've been in 3 other continents (OK, no more than about 30 countries, but still) cable users are in % much less than broadcast, and satellite channels with lots of ads are free, unencrypted (that is, you just have to buy the receiver).
I almost see a parallel with USA being one of the very few countries tying cellphone users to year-long contracts or short-lasting (and too expensive) pre-paid minutes, not to mention the pay-to-receive model, which AFAIK only Ukraine and USA use.
But I still can't pinpoint the origin of the problem, and why customer don't complain to such a bad treatment.
- first, pay a cable company to deliver TV programs
- second, endure all the commercials (a disgusting percentage of most cable channel's time is commercials) which pay for the TV channels anyway
I never watched sat TV in north-America, but I guess something similar happens there as well - ads+monthly fee. Or am I mistaken there?Why no free channels + lots of commercial (like in most of countries I've seen in the other continents) or public/paid channels with little to no commercials?
I'm not trying to be rhetorical, I'd really appreciate a psychological insight in such a situation. Thanks!
Yes... and no. There are very useful things that can be done on Mac HW that are either impossible or very uncommon to do on x86 HW. For example,
- target-mode booting to access a Mac's internal HD. Macs have that options since the first powerbooks (called SCSI Disk Mode at that time). Why is this not possible on an x86 box?
- standard gigabit ethernet on Powerbooks and PowerMacs
- better design on powerbooks
- finally (with notable exceptions) Apple HW lasts longer (it's like buying a German car or washers)
All I'd really want is to be able to replace the graphics card on my tiBook...-
Professional (studio) microphones usually need phantom power (11 - 48 volts) on a balanced type connector (XLR for example), usually monophonic.
-
Bias voltage (1.5 - 9V) is used with small, portable microphones like the ones people connect to portable minidisc recorders or professional tape recorders. All portable devices of that kind I've used have it on the mic input port - unbalanced stereo 3.5mm connector type.
-
Professional (stage) microphones are either passive (like the omnipresent SM58) or active - in which case they likely have built-int batteries.
If Apple allows a microphone to be connected to the iPod, it'll likely be of the 2nd type.More info at Shure for example.
Internet Explorer is free as well.
So is a kick in the mouth.
I am sure it's easy to find someone willing to administer it.
The point is: why would anyone want it?
> the monospace-char-based interface shown in the picture you reference, running under DOS
:-)
you know, now that I am looking at that picture again, I wonder whether that wasn't pixel-based too (CGA or Hercules?). Or were italicized characters available in character mode? I was still using 8-bit machines at that time, so I did not have the thrill of using char-based interfaces on PC since I jumped straight to an Atari ST (a Mac was way above my budget back then...
Speaking of the Atari ST, it was not until 1986 when I could try the native version of MS Write on it, of all things (no MS Word there)!
Sadly, I could not afford a Mac until the Plus dropped to affordable levels on the educational pricelist... and the Atari ST had a mighty 640x400 resolution
Microsoft Word broke that mould. It derived its heritage from, um, what WAS it called? Bravo? on the Alto. Its design center assumed multiple typefaces, proportionally spaced fonts, and full-bore true WYSIWYG screen displays.
You mean this image provided by Microsoft about MS-Word 1.0 as released in 1983 shows a product which broke that mould? I don't see that as much as in:
LisaWrite, released earlier than MS-Word in 1983 - it already had it quite right.
Out of curiosity, when did MS Word get a GUI (pixel-based, not monospace-char-based) interface? Did it happen first on MS Windows or on the Mac?
Sometimes it's actually quite similar: elsewhere:
as well as here:
The MPEG-4 codec in QT6 is simply an ISO-compliant MPEG-4 codec (as from this page). If mplayer plays RTSP/RTP streams (not files!) and if it complies with MPEG-4 standards, it should play them. That's what I was asking - since I don't use mplayer myself. Does it or does it not?
Does mplayer use QT-compatible codec APIs or does it reverse-engineer the codecs? Since you mentioned that it plays all QT formats except Sorenson-3 ... does it play On2, ZyGoVideo, etc. (these are just a few examples of codecs used with QuickTime) encoded videos?
I also still see no answer about the Sorenson-1 video codec used by mplayer. Has it been reverse-engineered to be used on Linux? Because if that is so, I could recompile it on IRIX and have some good use for it. Or does it simply use the x86 binary codec as distributed with QT?
And to the MacOSX thing. Pffft.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by that. Is Pffft=Perfectly futile for fun-impaired types?
Has MS released a version of WM player for MacOSX yet?
Good question. I suppose so, since there is something called "Windows Media Player for Mac OS X" which Micro$oft released sometimes in January this year. (hope this answer helps: I do not have a detailed answer because I do not use Micro$oft products at work: being a computer science professional, I would consider such use a moral equivalent to prostitution; supporting Micro$oft products, a moral equivalent to drug dealing).
mplayer will play windows media files (as well as Real video/audio files). It will also play every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. It WILL play V1, as it was REd and released.
So Sorenson 1 has been reverse-engineered? Interesting...
You mention every quicktime, except those encoded with Sorensen V3. Does it mean that mplayer plays MPEG-4 compliant video and audio as well, as for example encoded by QuickTime 6 MPEG-4 compliant codecs? I did not know there was a standard MPEG-4 video and audio playback codec on Linux. Even more interesting.
Does it handle streaming Quicktime
So linux/unix users can play everything but V3 sorenson, so both Real and WMV are more interesting than quicktime.
Sorry, but I have to correct you on this: Linux/Unix users except Mac OS X users can play everything but V3 Sorenson, since on the Mac OS X Unix platform all of these are playable.
Why doesn't slashdot staff advocate a vendor-independent standard like MPEG-4 instead? I don't see Real or MS Media being any more open-source-friendly than QuickTime, as far as codec specs goes.
You still don't understand the word "free" do you. I paid for Linux, as have many, many other people. What is so hard to understand about this. You can get Linux for free yes, but when it comes from a company you pay for it. Easy, no?
Actually it's much more than that: You deserve to be able to cooperate openly and freely with other people who use software. You deserve to be able to learn how the software works, and to teach your students with it. You deserve to be able to hire your favorite programmer to fix it when it breaks. .
But I believe that the first issue to address, in the current state of the software industry, is whether you are forced to use one specific hardware or software vendor.
If you work in any decent-sized company, agency, school, etc. chances are you are being forced to use one specific software vendor's applications, and that is MicroSoft. You have no freedom of choice of tools because, if your colleagues send you a file generated by M$Word or its siblings, you can't work with non M$ tools. That is one of the reasons why people can use Macs at work: because M$ Office runs on it, and they can't use GNU/Linux because there is no 100% M$Office-compatible solution running on GNU/Linux.
If you browse the web not using M$IE or M$Windows, you can't reach many pages which depend on M$ products - users can't reach them otherwise. Again, there is M$IE on Mac OS platforms, not on GNU-Linux.
Simple as that. Your freedom of choice is therefore limited by Micro$oft and its monopoly, gained by illegal practices.
Effectively, M$ has such power over the software industry and consumers as no other company has, even remotely. Having gained this power illegally, they should be punished.
The freedom of not choosing to pay Micro$oft any money is seriously undermined in the current software market.
Unfortunately, I don't personally know any software professional who can work and live 100% M$-free.
Do you know any GNU-Linux user or software developer who can get rid of all M$ products - no M$Windows, no M$Office, nothing even remotely installed on their PC, nothing ever paid to M$? Unfortunately, I don't personally know anyone in this situation.
So here's the problem: can you work 100% Apple-free in the software industry? Yes. 100% GNU-free? Yes. 100% M$-free? very difficult.
Therefore, fight Micro$oft!
It's my impression that Wi-Fi and cellphone technologies are quite orthogonal: how would you do for example Wi-Fi in a car at 150km/h or in a boat 20 km from the coast, or from your smaller-than-palm device? ANd what would be the use?
GSM won for 1 reason: it's the standard: across countries in 4 out of 5 continents, across all but 10% of companies, across almost all cellphone makers. It's over, CDMA, sorry. Until one can have 1 single phone with CDMA working in 5 continents, it won't win.
Would you approve if Italy took this pilot and condemned him for life for slaughtering twenty people (luckily for him there would be no death penalty in the EU) ? Would you approve if they lured him somehow out of US territory and then do whatever they pleased with him?
After all, he got almost nothing done to him here, despite the fact that he killed 20 people.
Furthermore, Torx screws are used, among others, by Philips for some of their consumer audio CD players, and by Motorola for their cellphones (just 2 randomly chosen examples of gadgets I had to open recently). Any decent electronics store (with no Apple-related parts or tools) will carry Torx screwdrivers. If you don't have the right tool, they're annoying. But I find them very robust for small-size screws and I suppose that's why they've been designed in the first place.
AFAIK, they can not be called CDs at that point: Philips owns the copyright (together with Sony?) and didn't they sue some company recently for putting the audio CD logo on it, when it's not a CD audio anymore, because it can't be played back as such (on Macs for example)?
Should these 'CD-like' things now be called some other way?
It's almost like the original Pizza (i.e. the one made with fresh buffalo mozzarella, in a wood-oven etc) and the so-called 'Pizza' (i.e. what people eat in the US). Too bad noone can apply quality-control for products called that way on the west side of the Atlantic by companies and chains having about as much concern about customers as M$oft ...