There's a big difference: OTA TV is based on a public resource (RF spectrum), but cable is not. So there is no justification for the FCC to outlaw analog cable. Cable companies may voluntarily eliminate analog cable, though.
Which has nothing to do with the original point that a particular H.264 file has a particular bitrate and resolution, and you need a device powerful enough to decode the file.
H.264 is wavelet based.
No, it isn't.
[long description of scalable video]
Too bad you can't actually do that with any H.264 files that really exist.
CALEA only says that the provider has to help perform the tapping. If a provider isn't subject to CALEA, the government will just install the taps themselves. There is no safe haven but end-to-end hard crypto.
(Insert obligatory right of privacy vs. law enforcement debate here.)
In bonded sender systems, you would put up a large (>$1,000) bond (like a deposit). If any spam comes from your server, you'd lose the bond and your certificate would be revoked, so you couldn't send any more mail.
Exploiting the weaknesses of such a scheme is left as an excercise for the reader.
I have to assume this works just like NeXT's fat binaries did - so a developer would have to go explicitly turn off PowerPC code generation and ship an Intel-only binary on-purpose. Just because he's developing/testing on Intel doesn't mean he's not generating PowerPC code as well
Yeah, but untested PPC binaries probably won't work. So an Intel-only developer would (foolishly) ship fat binaries, users would say "this doesn't work on PPC", and the developer would say "sorry, works on my machine". This is not a good situation, and Apple should not encourage it.
Like what overhead? My copy of Azureus reports less than 6% protocol overhead by bytes, although maybe you're talking about some other kind of overhead.
If you read the actual paper (not the Register article), the difference between naive source coding and Avalanche is covered. The paper also cites lots of prior work in this area.
This paper is from some researchers who have nothing to do with Microsoft's products. MS may not ever use this technology in any product. And if MS does use Avalanche for something, it will probably be buried away inside some other application (like Windows Update) instead of a standalone app.
Bram won't add FEC to BitTorrent because he's not convinced of the benefits in real-world situations. (Like most papers on this subject, Avalanche omits a lot of real-world details.)
Slashdot Mirror
iMovie, iPhoto, GarageBand ... the media conglomerates need to know they're protected.
So the media conglomerates are demanding DRM on user-created content? I don't get it.
Univ Network Admins have to balance the needs of students, faculty and staff when it comes to network usage.
Indeed, and the obvious solution is to put students on a physically separate network (with separate transit and everything).
Ineen is similar to Gizmo but it also has IM and video. It seems like companies are falling over themselves to give away SIP clients these days.
Ineen and Gizmo are still client-server SIP systems, but to truly compete with Skype, the IETF is working on P2P extensions to SIP.
Mobile WiMax doesn't exist. It's still being designed, and there might be products in 2007 if you're lucky.
OK, so you need a multi-GB/s connection between the GPU and the DVI transmitter, which still isn't free.
There's a big difference: OTA TV is based on a public resource (RF spectrum), but cable is not. So there is no justification for the FCC to outlaw analog cable. Cable companies may voluntarily eliminate analog cable, though.
Nobody has proposed outlawing analog cable.
BTW, CableCard has so much DRM and "robustness" in it, don't expect to ever connect one to your computer.
In the US, HDTV is digital. Analog TV really is going away.
And then you need a multi-GB/s connection between the GPU and the DAC, which isn't free.
H.264 is designed to be scalable.
Which has nothing to do with the original point that a particular H.264 file has a particular bitrate and resolution, and you need a device powerful enough to decode the file.
H.264 is wavelet based.
No, it isn't.
[long description of scalable video]
Too bad you can't actually do that with any H.264 files that really exist.
CALEA only says that the provider has to help perform the tapping. If a provider isn't subject to CALEA, the government will just install the taps themselves. There is no safe haven but end-to-end hard crypto.
(Insert obligatory right of privacy vs. law enforcement debate here.)
Or they can just get themselves classified as common carrier with respect to content but not anything else. These categories are not set in stone.
I'm not advocating bonded sender schemes for exactly those reasons.
In bonded sender systems, you would put up a large (>$1,000) bond (like a deposit). If any spam comes from your server, you'd lose the bond and your certificate would be revoked, so you couldn't send any more mail.
Exploiting the weaknesses of such a scheme is left as an excercise for the reader.
I have to assume this works just like NeXT's fat binaries did - so a developer would have to go explicitly turn off PowerPC code generation and ship an Intel-only binary on-purpose. Just because he's developing/testing on Intel doesn't mean he's not generating PowerPC code as well
Yeah, but untested PPC binaries probably won't work. So an Intel-only developer would (foolishly) ship fat binaries, users would say "this doesn't work on PPC", and the developer would say "sorry, works on my machine". This is not a good situation, and Apple should not encourage it.
Copyright owners always have the right to change licence terms.
Not retroactively, and the old versions are always available.
Like what overhead? My copy of Azureus reports less than 6% protocol overhead by bytes, although maybe you're talking about some other kind of overhead.
If you read the actual paper (not the Register article), the difference between naive source coding and Avalanche is covered. The paper also cites lots of prior work in this area.
This is addressed briefly at the end of the paper.
This paper is from some researchers who have nothing to do with Microsoft's products. MS may not ever use this technology in any product. And if MS does use Avalanche for something, it will probably be buried away inside some other application (like Windows Update) instead of a standalone app.
Bram won't add FEC to BitTorrent because he's not convinced of the benefits in real-world situations. (Like most papers on this subject, Avalanche omits a lot of real-world details.)
Here's an MP4 FAQ.
DivX is covered by just as many patents.
It is time to concentrate on a single codec that has interoperability options
I agree; that's why the industry should standardize on the multi-vendor, open MP4 standard.
Of course in reality mobile WiMax will have a cell radius of 1-2 miles, making handoffs much more frequent.