I did some early work with it when it was still Windows Media Photo. It's genuinely a good format. I just hope it doesn't get bogged down in politics and legal wrangling.
Or alternatively, we could do a little research and find the sample code that MS have released for writing a codec. Admittedly, the licence on the example code precludes including exactly that code in a GPL'd project, but a reimplementation looks to be clear... hardly "jealously guarded".
Honestly, MS are behaving oddly with this one. It's technically a good standard, they've backed down from a restrictive licence scheme they were going to use, and they've showed everybody how to use it. I can't help wondering what they're up to...
They pulled back from a previous licence they were going to release it under, which would have specifically prohibited, for example, a Gimp interface. You can see the old licence details here: http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/archive/2006/06/30/ 651898.aspx
The current licence is *much* more liberal, and I think Microsoft deserve credit for the move. I still don't trust them, but they did make a move in the right direction in this case.
Re:Geeks do- everyone else doesn't.
on
The DRM Scorecard
·
· Score: 1
It really doesn't involve even that much effort, because the chances are someone else with a legitimate need has already broken it. It's just a question of finding their output, if your only goal is to avoid paying - you can just bypass the first three filters if anyone else has been motivated enough to get through them and share their work. At that point you only need to know where to find it.
Some projects have a copyright-assignment requirement if you submit patches - I know the FSF does on the GNU stuff, but I don't know about Samba. If they do, then they can do what they like...
Someone mod this up, please... bandwidth is a rigidly defined term that the GP doesn't understand. A large file download is a perfectly valid way to estimate it. Of course, it might not be a realistic measure of how usable a connection is, but that's a different matter.
There's more to it than that to make tests repeatable. Any interesting system will have state beyond that represented by the fuzzed inputs - it's things like IO timings that will still change between runs even with the same random seed. Something as simple as a disk seek time varying between runs might make the difference between a test failing or passing.
Don't psychoacoustic models involve dynamic compression to increase the quantisation of the signal, thus making it more susceptible to data compression?
I agree, this tech is utterly incredible. However: Last week I found MS's fully textured (though low-res) 3d model of new york on their mapping site http://maps.live.com/ and thought that was very cool (it puts google earth's gray blocks that only go to 59th street to shame).
How's this for logic: any technical functionality (such as unit test support) which MS doesn't provide, constitutes a technical limitation in the software. Therefore, using any software which provides said functionality constitutes working around a technical limitation. Thus, using NUnit with VSE is in breach of the EULA. Using Bugzilla is in breach of the EULA. Using TortoiseSVN is in breach of the EULA.
How does this apply to free products like Visual Studio Express? There's no "sale" per se, and you can cancel installation right up to (and after) being shown the EULA. I'm not saying that EULA's are valid, but I don't see how the circumstances of shrink-wrap EULAs apply to free downloads.
That just means the film-makers need to learn to shoot for the new medium, rather than applying 2D techniques. In a way, it's back to play performances, where you also haven't got scale to play with (at least, not in the same way as you have with 2D).
Not only is VC-1 patented, but large chunks of the mechanics behind XAML are patented as well. Implementing full XAML support in Mono without violating them would be tricky.
Observe the channelling fins around the edge along each side. They aren't quite vertical. My guess is that the angular velocity they impart balances the torque of the rotor.
They'd be up for inducement, though. It's (almost) as illegal to induce someone to infringe copyright as it is to actually infringe copyright, as far as I'm aware.
Slashdot Mirror
DRM impacts my natural right to control hardware that I own. Besides, where else would you put it?
You can view the HDPhoto spec under the DPK EULA, which has much more liberal terms.
I did some early work with it when it was still Windows Media Photo. It's genuinely a good format. I just hope it doesn't get bogged down in politics and legal wrangling.
Or alternatively, we could do a little research and find the sample code that MS have released for writing a codec. Admittedly, the licence on the example code precludes including exactly that code in a GPL'd project, but a reimplementation looks to be clear... hardly "jealously guarded".
Honestly, MS are behaving oddly with this one. It's technically a good standard, they've backed down from a restrictive licence scheme they were going to use, and they've showed everybody how to use it. I can't help wondering what they're up to...
Specs, licence and example code are here: http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/thankyou.aspx?f amilyId=285eeffd-d86c-48c3-ab93-3abd5ee7f1ce&displ ayLang=en
Indeed it is. They've released reference code.
They pulled back from a previous licence they were going to release it under, which would have specifically prohibited, for example, a Gimp interface. You can see the old licence details here: http://blogs.msdn.com/billcrow/archive/2006/06/30/ 651898.aspx
The current licence is *much* more liberal, and I think Microsoft deserve credit for the move. I still don't trust them, but they did make a move in the right direction in this case.
It really doesn't involve even that much effort, because the chances are someone else with a legitimate need has already broken it. It's just a question of finding their output, if your only goal is to avoid paying - you can just bypass the first three filters if anyone else has been motivated enough to get through them and share their work. At that point you only need to know where to find it.
Well, I feel pretty.
Oh, so pretty,
I feel pretty and witty and bright!
And I pity
Any girl who isn't me tonight.
So there.
Some projects have a copyright-assignment requirement if you submit patches - I know the FSF does on the GNU stuff, but I don't know about Samba. If they do, then they can do what they like...
Someone mod this up, please... bandwidth is a rigidly defined term that the GP doesn't understand. A large file download is a perfectly valid way to estimate it. Of course, it might not be a realistic measure of how usable a connection is, but that's a different matter.
And that *still* doesn't get rid of aimbots.
There's more to it than that to make tests repeatable. Any interesting system will have state beyond that represented by the fuzzed inputs - it's things like IO timings that will still change between runs even with the same random seed. Something as simple as a disk seek time varying between runs might make the difference between a test failing or passing.
Continued on p.94 ?
...unless the original creator has significant patent rights in technology in that standard, at which point everything gets messy.
t =xaml%20microsoft
http://freepatentsonline.com/result.html?query_tx
Will it hit the Whitehouse?
Please?
Don't psychoacoustic models involve dynamic compression to increase the quantisation of the signal, thus making it more susceptible to data compression?
I agree, this tech is utterly incredible. However:
Last week I found MS's fully textured (though low-res) 3d model of new york on their mapping site http://maps.live.com/ and thought that was very cool (it puts google earth's gray blocks that only go to 59th street to shame).
Isn't that just Microsoft Flight Simulator data?
How's this for logic: any technical functionality (such as unit test support) which MS doesn't provide, constitutes a technical limitation in the software. Therefore, using any software which provides said functionality constitutes working around a technical limitation. Thus, using NUnit with VSE is in breach of the EULA. Using Bugzilla is in breach of the EULA. Using TortoiseSVN is in breach of the EULA.
This is silly.
How does this apply to free products like Visual Studio Express? There's no "sale" per se, and you can cancel installation right up to (and after) being shown the EULA. I'm not saying that EULA's are valid, but I don't see how the circumstances of shrink-wrap EULAs apply to free downloads.
It's an alternative to needing a memory checker, though, so it would provide an valid solution to the problem for a new application.
That just means the film-makers need to learn to shoot for the new medium, rather than applying 2D techniques. In a way, it's back to play performances, where you also haven't got scale to play with (at least, not in the same way as you have with 2D).
Not only is VC-1 patented, but large chunks of the mechanics behind XAML are patented as well. Implementing full XAML support in Mono without violating them would be tricky.
Observe the channelling fins around the edge along each side. They aren't quite vertical. My guess is that the angular velocity they impart balances the torque of the rotor.
They'd be up for inducement, though. It's (almost) as illegal to induce someone to infringe copyright as it is to actually infringe copyright, as far as I'm aware.