The decoder (if not already installed in your set) could be downloaded, either piecemeal from the station as it transitioned to more advanced codecs, or through a devoted decoder download channel maintained for that purpose.
For what DSP architecture would the binary encoder be compiled? Wouldn't this lock the industry into one manufacturer? What guarantee would there be that your DSP can decode the particular format?
A "true" HDTV set generally means that the TV set has the off-air tuner built in to the set. That means you can put up an antenna that can receive in the 54-860Mhz range, and if your local network is broadcasting a HD signal, your set will display it.
Will stores sell small-screen digital TV sets for less than $500 by the time analog TV broadcasts end in the United States (end of 2006)?
The typical anamorphic DVD is stored at 1.78:1. Though most Hollywood films are shot at 1.85:1, some films are shot at 2.35:1. Thus, they still look letterboxed even on a wide screen. If you have Goldeneye for N64, look at the difference between "Wide" setting (1.78:1) and "Cinema" setting (2.35:1).
SPDIF is a self-clocked digital signal. The cheapest $5 Wal-Mart interconnects may bring in errors from phase distortion. Phase distortion in a self-clocked digital signal is a Bad Thing, as it makes it harder for the receiver to tell where one bit ends and the next starts.
Unicode contains merely the lower sixteen bits of the UCS (Universal Character Set), aka ISO 10646. UCS defines a 31-bit character set; the lower 65534 positions, which Unicode dupes, is the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP) or Plane 0.
You're confusing Unicode with UTF-16. Unicode covers the entire defined UCS code space: "the Unicode standard and ISO/IEC 10646 now support three encoding forms that use a common repertoire of characters but allow for encoding as many as a million more characters."
But here's something I'm curious about, from the same page:
For example, a group of choreographers may design a set of characters for dance notation and encode the characters using code points in user space.
Doesn't dance notation require just four characters, left down up right?
Sonny Bono strikes again
on
Soundless Music?
·
· Score: 3, Informative
Cage's estate actually won a lawsuit over the copyright on this work. Apparently, the estate now has a legal precedent on owning all musical works composed entirely of rests.
Sonny Bono is the personification of counter-productive copyright law.
don't the enumerated factors apply only when the use is for "criticism, comment..."
Did you miss the "such as" right before the list? According to 17 USC 101, "The terms 'including' and 'such as' are illustrative and not limitative." But a republisher of out-of-print copyrighted works can still improve his legal chances by taking the "criticism and comment" angle, as ESR did with the so-called "Halloween" memos.
I want to Google in Quenya, Sindarin, and possibly the Black Speech, darn it.
Those three languages use tengwar as their native writing system. Tengwar doesn't even have a Unicode block (but it's proposed), let alone support in Windows.
why *hasn't* Microsoft attempted to control PC BIOS firmware? It would have seemed a natural thing for them to do, given their propensities. Is it just fear of antitrust legislation?
No. Instead, it's because Microsoft is still working on it, using Xbox as a test platform.
there isn't anything about BIOS programming that is proprietary or costly
What about talking to the motherboard's chipset? Many chipsets have settings that if accidentally triggered could make the motherboard HCF. Of course, the official BIOS is careful never to trigger those settings, but just randomly poking at the I/O registers could do Bad Things.
If you create a language that has the same syntax with the same meaning then you are breaking those "rights".
If I don't call it Java(TM) brand then I'm not infringing Sun's Java mark. Stating that something "interoperates with programs that use Java(TM) technology" is fair use of Sun's technology.
Likewise, if I write my own spec without using any of Sun's expression, I break no copyright. There is currently no U.S. copyright on facts (1y7 USC 102(b); Feist v. Rural).
UNLESS you can create a Clean Room implementation ala the original IBM Bios clones.
The dirty/clean process used to write the clone of IBM PC BIOS involved one "dirty" team that turned the BIOS code and its observed behavior into a specification and another "clean" team that turned the specification into a computer program. It was designed to defeat any accusation of access to the original work, without which there is no copying and thus no infringement. Anybody who has never seen Sun code and works only from the published specification is already "clean".
One standard access control policy language can replace dozens of application-specific languages
But what is an "access control policy language"? Is it the language used to write ACLs on files and folders, or is it a language used to write copyright management information as defined in 17 USC 1202?
'Open Source English'. That makes absolutely no sense.
The PICK operating system had a database query language called English, a dialect of SQL. I'd consider the English programming language (not the English natural language in which this comment is written) an "open-source language" if one of the major free databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SAP DB, etc) introduced PICK interoperability through support for English queries.
If you're worried about my use of "open-source language" to refer to "computer language with a widely used open-source implementation", don't worry too much. Such "overloading" is common in computer jargon.
A generic digital restrictions management component such as XACML, TCPA, or the technology formerly known as Palladium can be used for good (protect the privacy and integrity of personal information) or for evil (deny fair uses of copyrighted works).
Honestly, if the business opportunity isn't great enough for them, why don't they let go and let people get the music they want?
There may be an argument that copying an out-of-print work may not constitute infringement. One of the things a U.S. federal judge looks at in a fair use defense under 17 USC 117 is the effect on the market value of the work. The defense could conceivably argue that by taking a work out of print, the author has admitted that the work has no significant value.
Nothing you read on any web site operated by OSDN is legal advice.
OK, I guess you may have a point about the OEM versions (the immediate topic at hand), but I'm still curious as to how to go about returning copies of proprietary computer programs sold at retail:
ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods.
Perhaps, but consider the following hypothetical case: I buy a copy of a computer program from a Best Buy store. I open the outer shrinkwrap. I read the EULA which states that I can reject the goods by returning the entire package with unopened inner shrinkwrap to the store. I do not open the inner shrinkwrap because I disagree with some other provision in the EULA. But when I take the package back to the store, the clerk quotes the store's return policy and refuses to honor the EULA because I opened the outer package. Do I have a chance in small-claims court against Best Buy for breach of contract?
only a "recovery disk" which can be used to restore the Dell machine to its factory state. The seller did not transfer this CD to the buyer
If the OEM doesn't give the buyer a genuine copy of the recovery disc, then how was I holding my Windows ME operating environment re-installation disc, provided by Dell, in my hand one minute ago? And no, it isn't just a Ghost image containing the initial contents of C:/Windows and C:/Program Files; it seems to have actual Windows.cab files and application setup.exe files on it. I'm not even sure whether or not it checks for a Dell motherboard.
In [Specht v. Netscape], the license was found to be unenforcable, but only because the user didn't have to click on "I agree" or something similar before installing the software.
In the case of gratis downloadable software, the author may have a better chance of showing its side of the consideration because the author itself provided you with the copy. Commercial software from the shelf of Best Buy is different because the initial contract you create when you pay for the package is between you and Best Buy, not between you and Microsoft.
Also see Register.COM v. Verio, Inc. where a "by submitting a query, you agree to the terms of this license" clause was found enforcable.
But in this case, they give up consideration (the search results) at the same time the user did.
When does Microsoft give consideration in the EULA?
What the heck drove you to think the NINTENDO Gameboy was made by Sony?
That's now how I read the blurb. It looked to me like lotech was waiting for Sony to make a handheld gaming device, based on either Palm OS (what seems to have been pictured) or the PSOne architecture. I'm guessing Microsoft will beat Sony to the punch with the Xboy.
In return for giving up rights, including the right to transfer the software to another computer, the user gets a substantial discount on the software.
The user sees the terms only after consideration has already been exchanged. As I understand it, conditions added after the sale of a copy, especially unilateral conditions in a contract of adhesion, do not bind the parties.
17 USC 117: "Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program"
This states merely that I can sell my backups only if I sell all copies that I own.
"Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." The license pretty clearly states that that authorization is not granted.
The genuine hologrammed copies are not an "adaptation" under copyright law, and that's the only thing I'd be selling.
The only way Microsoft could have a remote chance to make a EULA binding would be to encrypt the install files and to claim that installing the software without agreeing to the click-through EULA circumvents the access on the install files and violates section 1201(a) of the DMCA.
I can't remember how long it's been since I couldn't buy a Mac with a CD-Rom drive.
You miss the point. Grandparent was complaining about how hard it is to get Mac OS to boot from some hard drives.
Do you really need to boot off of that extra drive you added?
Yes. What if the factory drives break? I have had TWO hard drives break (run 30 minutes and then die) in a Macintosh Performa 6230CD machine: one factory and the other the warranty replacement.
Slashdot Mirror
The decoder (if not already installed in your set) could be downloaded, either piecemeal from the station as it transitioned to more advanced codecs, or through a devoted decoder download channel maintained for that purpose.
For what DSP architecture would the binary encoder be compiled? Wouldn't this lock the industry into one manufacturer? What guarantee would there be that your DSP can decode the particular format?
A "true" HDTV set generally means that the TV set has the off-air tuner built in to the set. That means you can put up an antenna that can receive in the 54-860Mhz range, and if your local network is broadcasting a HD signal, your set will display it.
Will stores sell small-screen digital TV sets for less than $500 by the time analog TV broadcasts end in the United States (end of 2006)?
The typical anamorphic DVD is stored at 1.78:1. Though most Hollywood films are shot at 1.85:1, some films are shot at 2.35:1. Thus, they still look letterboxed even on a wide screen. If you have Goldeneye for N64, look at the difference between "Wide" setting (1.78:1) and "Cinema" setting (2.35:1).
SPDIF is a self-clocked digital signal. The cheapest $5 Wal-Mart interconnects may bring in errors from phase distortion. Phase distortion in a self-clocked digital signal is a Bad Thing, as it makes it harder for the receiver to tell where one bit ends and the next starts.
Unicode contains merely the lower sixteen bits of the UCS (Universal Character Set), aka ISO 10646. UCS defines a 31-bit character set; the lower 65534 positions, which Unicode dupes, is the Basic Multilingual Plane (BMP) or Plane 0.
You're confusing Unicode with UTF-16. Unicode covers the entire defined UCS code space: "the Unicode standard and ISO/IEC 10646 now support three encoding forms that use a common repertoire of characters but allow for encoding as many as a million more characters."
But here's something I'm curious about, from the same page:
For example, a group of choreographers may design a set of characters for dance notation and encode the characters using code points in user space.
Doesn't dance notation require just four characters, left down up right?
Cage's estate actually won a lawsuit over the copyright on this work. Apparently, the estate now has a legal precedent on owning all musical works composed entirely of rests.
Sonny Bono is the personification of counter-productive copyright law.
It seems like comparable programs (i.e. maya) are HUGE.
Maya is huge because it comes with clip art.
Is it written completely in Assembler??!
All programs compiled with GCC are represented in the target architecture's assembly language at one point in the compilation.
don't the enumerated factors apply only when the use is for "criticism, comment..."
Did you miss the "such as" right before the list? According to 17 USC 101, "The terms 'including' and 'such as' are illustrative and not limitative." But a republisher of out-of-print copyrighted works can still improve his legal chances by taking the "criticism and comment" angle, as ESR did with the so-called "Halloween" memos.
I want to Google in Quenya, Sindarin, and possibly the Black Speech, darn it.
Those three languages use tengwar as their native writing system. Tengwar doesn't even have a Unicode block (but it's proposed), let alone support in Windows.
The parent story is reprinted from this Everything 2 article.
why *hasn't* Microsoft attempted to control PC BIOS firmware? It would have seemed a natural thing for them to do, given their propensities. Is it just fear of antitrust legislation?
No. Instead, it's because Microsoft is still working on it, using Xbox as a test platform.
there isn't anything about BIOS programming that is proprietary or costly
What about talking to the motherboard's chipset? Many chipsets have settings that if accidentally triggered could make the motherboard HCF. Of course, the official BIOS is careful never to trigger those settings, but just randomly poking at the I/O registers could do Bad Things.
If you create a language that has the same syntax with the same meaning then you are breaking those "rights".
If I don't call it Java(TM) brand then I'm not infringing Sun's Java mark. Stating that something "interoperates with programs that use Java(TM) technology" is fair use of Sun's technology.
Likewise, if I write my own spec without using any of Sun's expression, I break no copyright. There is currently no U.S. copyright on facts (1y7 USC 102(b); Feist v. Rural).
UNLESS you can create a Clean Room implementation ala the original IBM Bios clones.
The dirty/clean process used to write the clone of IBM PC BIOS involved one "dirty" team that turned the BIOS code and its observed behavior into a specification and another "clean" team that turned the specification into a computer program. It was designed to defeat any accusation of access to the original work, without which there is no copying and thus no infringement. Anybody who has never seen Sun code and works only from the published specification is already "clean".
One standard access control policy language can replace dozens of application-specific languages
But what is an "access control policy language"? Is it the language used to write ACLs on files and folders, or is it a language used to write copyright management information as defined in 17 USC 1202?
'Open Source English'. That makes absolutely no sense.
The PICK operating system had a database query language called English, a dialect of SQL. I'd consider the English programming language (not the English natural language in which this comment is written) an "open-source language" if one of the major free databases (MySQL, PostgreSQL, SAP DB, etc) introduced PICK interoperability through support for English queries.
If you're worried about my use of "open-source language" to refer to "computer language with a widely used open-source implementation", don't worry too much. Such "overloading" is common in computer jargon.
Who will use it, and for what purposes??
A generic digital restrictions management component such as XACML, TCPA, or the technology formerly known as Palladium can be used for good (protect the privacy and integrity of personal information) or for evil (deny fair uses of copyrighted works).
How can a language be open source?
I consider a language to be "open source" if it has a reference implementation available to the public as OSI Certified(TM) open source software.
What application does this language have in digital restrictions management of copyrighted works?
Sony owns Sony Electronics and Sony Music. Sony Electronics makes CD-R media. Sony Music is a major label.
Honestly, if the business opportunity isn't great enough for them, why don't they let go and let people get the music they want?
There may be an argument that copying an out-of-print work may not constitute infringement. One of the things a U.S. federal judge looks at in a fair use defense under 17 USC 117 is the effect on the market value of the work. The defense could conceivably argue that by taking a work out of print, the author has admitted that the work has no significant value.
Nothing you read on any web site operated by OSDN is legal advice.
OK, I guess you may have a point about the OEM versions (the immediate topic at hand), but I'm still curious as to how to go about returning copies of proprietary computer programs sold at retail:
ProCD extended an opportunity to reject if a buyer should find the license terms unsatisfactory; Zeidenberg inspected the package, tried out the software, learned of the license, and did not reject the goods.
Perhaps, but consider the following hypothetical case: I buy a copy of a computer program from a Best Buy store. I open the outer shrinkwrap. I read the EULA which states that I can reject the goods by returning the entire package with unopened inner shrinkwrap to the store. I do not open the inner shrinkwrap because I disagree with some other provision in the EULA. But when I take the package back to the store, the clerk quotes the store's return policy and refuses to honor the EULA because I opened the outer package. Do I have a chance in small-claims court against Best Buy for breach of contract?
only a "recovery disk" which can be used to restore the Dell machine to its factory state. The seller did not transfer this CD to the buyer
If the OEM doesn't give the buyer a genuine copy of the recovery disc, then how was I holding my Windows ME operating environment re-installation disc, provided by Dell, in my hand one minute ago? And no, it isn't just a Ghost image containing the initial contents of C:/Windows and C:/Program Files; it seems to have actual Windows .cab files and application setup.exe files on it. I'm not even sure whether or not it checks for a Dell motherboard.
In [Specht v. Netscape], the license was found to be unenforcable, but only because the user didn't have to click on "I agree" or something similar before installing the software.
In the case of gratis downloadable software, the author may have a better chance of showing its side of the consideration because the author itself provided you with the copy. Commercial software from the shelf of Best Buy is different because the initial contract you create when you pay for the package is between you and Best Buy, not between you and Microsoft.
Also see Register.COM v. Verio, Inc. where a "by submitting a query, you agree to the terms of this license" clause was found enforcable.
But in this case, they give up consideration (the search results) at the same time the user did.
When does Microsoft give consideration in the EULA?
What the heck drove you to think the NINTENDO Gameboy was made by Sony?
That's now how I read the blurb. It looked to me like lotech was waiting for Sony to make a handheld gaming device, based on either Palm OS (what seems to have been pictured) or the PSOne architecture. I'm guessing Microsoft will beat Sony to the punch with the Xboy.
THIS COMMENT IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE.
In return for giving up rights, including the right to transfer the software to another computer, the user gets a substantial discount on the software.
The user sees the terms only after consideration has already been exchanged. As I understand it, conditions added after the sale of a copy, especially unilateral conditions in a contract of adhesion, do not bind the parties.
17 USC 117: "Any exact copies prepared in accordance with the provisions of this section may be leased, sold, or otherwise transferred, along with the copy from which such copies were prepared, only as part of the lease, sale, or other transfer of all rights in the program"
This states merely that I can sell my backups only if I sell all copies that I own.
"Adaptations so prepared may be transferred only with the authorization of the copyright owner." The license pretty clearly states that that authorization is not granted.
The genuine hologrammed copies are not an "adaptation" under copyright law, and that's the only thing I'd be selling.
The only way Microsoft could have a remote chance to make a EULA binding would be to encrypt the install files and to claim that installing the software without agreeing to the click-through EULA circumvents the access on the install files and violates section 1201(a) of the DMCA.
I can't remember how long it's been since I couldn't buy a Mac with a CD-Rom drive.
You miss the point. Grandparent was complaining about how hard it is to get Mac OS to boot from some hard drives.
Do you really need to boot off of that extra drive you added?
Yes. What if the factory drives break? I have had TWO hard drives break (run 30 minutes and then die) in a Macintosh Performa 6230CD machine: one factory and the other the warranty replacement.