They're not talking about processing in the sense of DSP, they're talking about synthesis of sound waveforms simulating physical models of the instruments. Any DSP would come after that.
I suspect that 90% of the "backlash" will come from people who were pirating the software anyway. These people were not customers to begin with.
As a (now former) Adobe pirate, I was thrilled when Creative Cloud was released. I used "extended trial editions" (as I called them) for school and personal projects, but now I can afford legit copies of everything I use (Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and After Effects primarily) and then some. And I don't have to worry about using them on business projects and getting caught with pirated software.
The educational discount gets you everything (Master Collection, not just Photoshop) for $20 per month. So, for $240 per year, both your wife and your son can get the latest Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Fireworks, Flash (and Flash Builder Premium and Game Developer Tools), Premiere Pro, After Effects, Audition (audio editing), and Acrobat Pro.
It seems there's a lot of confusion as to what the Adobe Creative Cloud is. I currently subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud at the $50 per month rate. Here's what I get...
Adobe CS6 Master Collection -- Everything, not just Photoshop -- Usually around $2600 when purchased as a standalone program
-- At $50 per month, I could only upgrade every 4 1/3 years
-- But I get continuous updates -- I can install ACC on two computers
-- One can be OSX and the other Windows
-- You can't do this with purchased apps -- Apps are installed locally
-- Don't have to be online to use apps
-- Unless you're past the current expiration of your subscription -- Data files are stored locally
-- Don't have to use cloud storage
Subscription options: -- $20/month - One Application, No Commitment -- $20/month - All Applications, Annual Commitment, Students and Teachers (K-12 and College) -- $50/month - All Applications, Annual Commitment (What I have) -- $75/month - All Applications, No Commitment
So, while you may still have some qualms about a subscription model, remember not to spread FUD or inaccurate information.
Here's the plain English version of the "No Derivatives" clause of the CC-BY-NC-ND license:
No Derivatives: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Citations and quotes are covered under fair use, so that's still possible. The problem is that of the three parts of the ND clause, the "build upon" part is the only one that should apply to a scientific paper. Now this clause might be considered too restrictive for something like a photograph or work of fiction for some people, but the "may not alter or transform" parts should almost be automatic for evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific paper.
I'd recommend that Creative Commons consider adding a slightly less restrictive version of "No Derivatives" and call it something like "No Modifications". It could go something like this:
No Modifications: You may not alter or transform this work except to enable efficient search and retrieval of the work from an automated storage system and for basic reformatting required to display a work in a different medium.
This would allow other researchers to "build upon" the research (what scientific research really is). It would make it clear that storing the paper in a database is fine as long as when the paper is actually displayed, it isn't changed except for possibly formatting (think margins and fonts). The paper could be republished (again with formatting changes) as long as the BY clause (and NC clause, if present) is followed.
This seems to be a good compromise between SA and ND. The NM clause also be used for other types of works. For example, a photo used in a calendar under SA could be cropped and photo-manipulated. Under NM it could be included in the calendar (built upon), but only transformations needed for publication would be allowed such as resizing and changing the resolution. Under ND it couldn't be used in the calendar at all.
I also might suggest a couple other clauses. First: CA - Commercial Available. This would indicate that while the work is released under "No Commercial Use", the author is open to commercial use on a case by case basis. Second: NP - Non Profit. This would indicate that the work could be used in something that would be sold (like the calendar) as long as some portion of the proceeds (say 70%) went to a non-profit organization officially recognized by the appropriate government agency in the organization's legal jurisdiction.
So the levels would be:
Money: - Any Use - Non Profit (Optional Commercial Available) - No Commercial Use (Optional Commercial Available)
Changes: - Any Change - No Modifications (can be reformatted and built upon) - No Derivatives (cannot be reformatted or built upon)
If you go read the patent, there are two things to note.
First, is that the patent provides very explicit flow charts that describe the algorithm that generates the summary. All Google and AOL have to do to win is show that they generate their summaries using a different algorithm.
Second, is that the patent is for an algorithm to calculate which section should be shown in a summary. You cannot patent algorithms. The patent shouldn't have been awarded in the first place.
Zinc is used as a catalyst to remove hydrogen from water leaving zinc oxide. The heat come from solar radiation.
Zn + H2O + heat --> ZnO + H2
The hydrogen can be used as fuel producing only water:
2*H2 + O2 --> 2*H2O
The zinc oxide is reduced to Zn using heat from solar radiation:
2*ZnO + heat --> 2*Zn + O2
The cycle repeats and the zinc is reused continuously.
Zinc will be needed initially and it will be need to be replenished on occasion, but compared to the world's consumption of zinc (12 million tonnes per year) it's probably quite small.
Remember as well that the pollution produced by the additional production of the zinc will probably be offset by reduced emissions from burning hydrogen instead of gasoline.
All in all, I think they've got a good plan to produce hydrogen in such a way that the environmental impact is minimal and should be greatly offset by reduction in other areas.
A book, a song, a program, a widget, hell YOU, can all be represented by a large enough number.
The point is whether there's enough "original creativity" in developing that bignum to warrant protection. Some things should be protected, some should not. We can argue all day about what should be protected, how long that protection should last and what the punishment for violating those protections should be. My answers, even as both a patent and copyright holder, are less, less, and less.
But to argue that simply because something can be represented as just a number means it shouldn't be protected is ridiculous.
Only the $80,000 difference would be taxable in the US. You'd get a W-2G that showed you won $280,000, but then you'd list the $200,000 you spent on tickets as an itemized deduction on schedule A.
Using HTML5 for video someone could create a iTunes competitor today. Come on TV/Movie studios what are you waiting for? Do you enjoy handing Apple 60%, or do you want someone else to create it all and then cry that they're stealing from you?
HTML5 video does not allow for DRM. iTunes and Flash (to some extent) video does. Ergo, no HTML5 iTunes clone.
I hate DRM, but the reality is that a studio won't authorize the use of their material without some basic assurances.
That makes no sense because they are pushing HTML5 which allows the same thing
Initially, Apple only wanted web apps for the iPhone. It took nearly a year for the iPhone SDK and App Store to be opened up. Apple cared mainly about opening up the platform to outside developers. A web app running HTML5 and JavaScript could do very little damage to the iPhone OS whereas a native App has the potential to do more damage.
I still don't think their hatred of Flash is about protecting their revenue stream (which shows why they allow NetFlix streaming). They sell songs on iTunes, but Pandora hasn't hurt that, so I don't think they see NetFlix as a threat either. They probably look at the trade off that having NetFlix would sell more iPads to people who might then buy more stuff from iTunes (music, apps, or videos).
I think their hatred of Flash is really a hatred of... Flash. I don't work at Apple, but I can just about guarantee you they've ported some version of Flash player over to an iPhone in-house and it probably sucks. The same probably applies to the Java Virtual Machine as well. When you have such a crappy intermediary on a phone where user experience is king, Apple doesn't want any part of it.
If you look at some of the other intermediaries that are out there, primarily Unity3D, Apple happily lets them in because they don't affect performance. Yes, you can build crappy apps in Xcode and Unity, but it's also just as easy to write good apps. I imagine in Flash and Java, it's probably hard to write apps that do anything useful, but still live up to Apple's expectations for providing a slick user experience.
Adobe is whining about CS5 apps being blocked, but my prediction is that a CS5 app is going to be sluggish, particularly the touch interface, compared to an Xcode or Unity app. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.
Wait, so it's Obama's fault that you're a bad parent? First, there is still a NASA and a space program.
Yes, but not a "human exploration" space program. Or one that she can look at and potentially be a part of.
Second, help the kid find some other interests. We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study, to learn, and to do. Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit.
I have. She's coding in Python and building robots with her Lego Mindstorms kit. The dream that was fueling that desire to learn? Going to space.
When I was a kid, I had the same dream. Go to space. I had the shuttle program to look at and say "I could be a part of that". I studied hard, and ended up a computer engineer. I didn't go into space, but I did well.
Now, there's nothing to point at and say "Hey, you could do that" that inspires her as a kid. I can tell her all about software engineering, or genetic engineering, or energy research. But none of that's as cool as "going to space". She'll still end up OK because she's smart, but I don't think she'll apply herself as well as if she had a loftier goal. And there's no amount of "parenting" that will change that.
First, you shouldn't have (intentionally) crushed your daughter's dreams like that.
All I did was tell her the truth: "They're cancelling Ares". She broke down on just that because she's smart enough to understand the implications.
Second, if you'd bothered to have done some reading, you'd find Obama's administration appears to be choosing the Flexible Path to Mars plan, recommended by the Augustine Commission. They're just killing Constellation because the money required to complete the program does not exist.
Yes, they're going to spend $3 billion over five years on heavy lift R&D, but there's no overall program to direct that research. All Bolden said was that funding was directed towards "the clear goal of taking us farther and faster into space". He didn't say where or when.
It is my belief that without a Kennedy-like mandate, that R&D funding will be spent all over the place and, once it's spent, we won't be any closer to human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
They used the Augustine Commission to kill off Constellation, but they didn't pick one of the alternatives or suggest something new. If all they're doing is R&D, it'll be easy for Congress to go after that funding later to pay for some pet project.
The only good news is the extension of the ISS until 2020. But other than that, meh...
The bottom line is we have no long-term strategy for human exploration beyond LEO. Unless you call some paltry R&D and "hope" that commercial industry picks up the slack a strategy.
It's not so much that he's killing the Constellation program (which includes Ares), but that there's nothing to replace it. This is going to set us back by decades. We may not go back to the moon until the next century, if ever.
What gets me is not so much the fact that we'll be using commercial rockets to get to the ISS, but that we now have no strategy for getting back to the Moon and/or going to Mars.
When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying. How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?
Yes, I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim, but at least there was a chance. And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school. Now what? Now she doesn't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.
Yeah, he claims a custom "Farmville" apps is awesome. I guess some people are easily amused. But the rest of the specs seem pretty much in line. We'll see in a little bit.
- $599, $699, $799 depending on size and memory - iPhone OS with multitasking - OLED screen (no size given) - Verizon and ATT for 3G, WiFi - Front and back cameras for video conferencing - Thumbpad on each side for mouse gestures - Fingerprint scanner for login with up to five profiles - TV/Monitor output and wireless keyboard - HDTV Tuner with PVR - Solar panel for recharging (more a gimmick) - Battery life is "great" in ebook mode, 2-3 hours otherwise - No word on name
Slashdot Mirror
They're not talking about processing in the sense of DSP, they're talking about synthesis of sound waveforms simulating physical models of the instruments. Any DSP would come after that.
You do realize this is research and not a product, don't you? As in, hey look what we discovered we can do!
If you want it ported to Linux using AMD GPUs, request the source code (since that's the only way it's provided) and port it yourself.
I suspect that 90% of the "backlash" will come from people who were pirating the software anyway. These people were not customers to begin with.
As a (now former) Adobe pirate, I was thrilled when Creative Cloud was released. I used "extended trial editions" (as I called them) for school and personal projects, but now I can afford legit copies of everything I use (Photoshop, Illustrator, Premiere Pro, and After Effects primarily) and then some. And I don't have to worry about using them on business projects and getting caught with pirated software.
The educational discount gets you everything (Master Collection, not just Photoshop) for $20 per month. So, for $240 per year, both your wife and your son can get the latest Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, Fireworks, Flash (and Flash Builder Premium and Game Developer Tools), Premiere Pro, After Effects, Audition (audio editing), and Acrobat Pro.
Yep. Crazy pricing. Pay less, get tons more.
It seems there's a lot of confusion as to what the Adobe Creative Cloud is. I currently subscribe to Adobe Creative Cloud at the $50 per month rate. Here's what I get...
Adobe CS6 Master Collection
-- Everything, not just Photoshop
-- Usually around $2600 when purchased as a standalone program
-- At $50 per month, I could only upgrade every 4 1/3 years
-- But I get continuous updates
-- I can install ACC on two computers
-- One can be OSX and the other Windows
-- You can't do this with purchased apps
-- Apps are installed locally
-- Don't have to be online to use apps
-- Unless you're past the current expiration of your subscription
-- Data files are stored locally
-- Don't have to use cloud storage
Subscription options:
-- $20/month - One Application, No Commitment
-- $20/month - All Applications, Annual Commitment, Students and Teachers (K-12 and College)
-- $50/month - All Applications, Annual Commitment (What I have)
-- $75/month - All Applications, No Commitment
So, while you may still have some qualms about a subscription model, remember not to spread FUD or inaccurate information.
Here's the plain English version of the "No Derivatives" clause of the CC-BY-NC-ND license:
No Derivatives: You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.
Citations and quotes are covered under fair use, so that's still possible. The problem is that of the three parts of the ND clause, the "build upon" part is the only one that should apply to a scientific paper. Now this clause might be considered too restrictive for something like a photograph or work of fiction for some people, but the "may not alter or transform" parts should almost be automatic for evidence-based, peer-reviewed scientific paper.
I'd recommend that Creative Commons consider adding a slightly less restrictive version of "No Derivatives" and call it something like "No Modifications". It could go something like this:
No Modifications: You may not alter or transform this work except to enable efficient search and retrieval of the work from an automated storage system and for basic reformatting required to display a work in a different medium.
This would allow other researchers to "build upon" the research (what scientific research really is). It would make it clear that storing the paper in a database is fine as long as when the paper is actually displayed, it isn't changed except for possibly formatting (think margins and fonts). The paper could be republished (again with formatting changes) as long as the BY clause (and NC clause, if present) is followed.
This seems to be a good compromise between SA and ND. The NM clause also be used for other types of works. For example, a photo used in a calendar under SA could be cropped and photo-manipulated. Under NM it could be included in the calendar (built upon), but only transformations needed for publication would be allowed such as resizing and changing the resolution. Under ND it couldn't be used in the calendar at all.
I also might suggest a couple other clauses. First: CA - Commercial Available. This would indicate that while the work is released under "No Commercial Use", the author is open to commercial use on a case by case basis. Second: NP - Non Profit. This would indicate that the work could be used in something that would be sold (like the calendar) as long as some portion of the proceeds (say 70%) went to a non-profit organization officially recognized by the appropriate government agency in the organization's legal jurisdiction.
So the levels would be:
Money:
- Any Use
- Non Profit (Optional Commercial Available)
- No Commercial Use (Optional Commercial Available)
Changes:
- Any Change
- No Modifications (can be reformatted and built upon)
- No Derivatives (cannot be reformatted or built upon)
If you go read the patent, there are two things to note.
First, is that the patent provides very explicit flow charts that describe the algorithm that generates the summary. All Google and AOL have to do to win is show that they generate their summaries using a different algorithm.
Second, is that the patent is for an algorithm to calculate which section should be shown in a summary. You cannot patent algorithms. The patent shouldn't have been awarded in the first place.
I hate the USPTO and I hold a (hardware) patent.
This is not support. This is fixing something that was broke in the first place.
You broke the code!
1. Become a cop
2. Shoot someone
3. Get your picture in the line up
4. Get selected
5. Profit
Cause a cop would never shoot someone, right?
Zinc is used as a catalyst to remove hydrogen from water leaving zinc oxide. The heat come from solar radiation.
Zn + H2O + heat --> ZnO + H2
The hydrogen can be used as fuel producing only water:
2*H2 + O2 --> 2*H2O
The zinc oxide is reduced to Zn using heat from solar radiation:
2*ZnO + heat --> 2*Zn + O2
The cycle repeats and the zinc is reused continuously.
Zinc will be needed initially and it will be need to be replenished on occasion, but compared to the world's consumption of zinc (12 million tonnes per year) it's probably quite small.
Remember as well that the pollution produced by the additional production of the zinc will probably be offset by reduced emissions from burning hydrogen instead of gasoline.
All in all, I think they've got a good plan to produce hydrogen in such a way that the environmental impact is minimal and should be greatly offset by reduction in other areas.
A book, a song, a program, a widget, hell YOU, can all be represented by a large enough number.
The point is whether there's enough "original creativity" in developing that bignum to warrant protection. Some things should be protected, some should not. We can argue all day about what should be protected, how long that protection should last and what the punishment for violating those protections should be. My answers, even as both a patent and copyright holder, are less, less, and less.
But to argue that simply because something can be represented as just a number means it shouldn't be protected is ridiculous.
"NP" stands for "non-polynomial," e.g. an exponential or factorial function of the number of items used.
Actually NP stands for "Non-deterministic Polynomial". See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NP_(complexity).
If they had developed a plugin that didn't drain the battery and have reliability and performance issues, maybe they'd still have a job.
Only the $80,000 difference would be taxable in the US. You'd get a W-2G that showed you won $280,000, but then you'd list the $200,000 you spent on tickets as an itemized deduction on schedule A.
Now linked for your clicking pleasure:
Images
Using HTML5 for video someone could create a iTunes competitor today. Come on TV/Movie studios what are you waiting for? Do you enjoy handing Apple 60%, or do you want someone else to create it all and then cry that they're stealing from you?
HTML5 video does not allow for DRM. iTunes and Flash (to some extent) video does. Ergo, no HTML5 iTunes clone.
I hate DRM, but the reality is that a studio won't authorize the use of their material without some basic assurances.
That makes no sense because they are pushing HTML5 which allows the same thing
Initially, Apple only wanted web apps for the iPhone. It took nearly a year for the iPhone SDK and App Store to be opened up. Apple cared mainly about opening up the platform to outside developers. A web app running HTML5 and JavaScript could do very little damage to the iPhone OS whereas a native App has the potential to do more damage.
I still don't think their hatred of Flash is about protecting their revenue stream (which shows why they allow NetFlix streaming). They sell songs on iTunes, but Pandora hasn't hurt that, so I don't think they see NetFlix as a threat either. They probably look at the trade off that having NetFlix would sell more iPads to people who might then buy more stuff from iTunes (music, apps, or videos).
I think their hatred of Flash is really a hatred of... Flash. I don't work at Apple, but I can just about guarantee you they've ported some version of Flash player over to an iPhone in-house and it probably sucks. The same probably applies to the Java Virtual Machine as well. When you have such a crappy intermediary on a phone where user experience is king, Apple doesn't want any part of it.
If you look at some of the other intermediaries that are out there, primarily Unity3D, Apple happily lets them in because they don't affect performance. Yes, you can build crappy apps in Xcode and Unity, but it's also just as easy to write good apps. I imagine in Flash and Java, it's probably hard to write apps that do anything useful, but still live up to Apple's expectations for providing a slick user experience.
Adobe is whining about CS5 apps being blocked, but my prediction is that a CS5 app is going to be sluggish, particularly the touch interface, compared to an Xcode or Unity app. We'll just have to see how it all plays out.
Wait, so it's Obama's fault that you're a bad parent? First, there is still a NASA and a space program.
Yes, but not a "human exploration" space program. Or one that she can look at and potentially be a part of.
Second, help the kid find some other interests. We live in a world of almost an infinite number of things to study, to learn, and to do. Help your kid broaden her horizons a little bit.
I have. She's coding in Python and building robots with her Lego Mindstorms kit. The dream that was fueling that desire to learn? Going to space.
When I was a kid, I had the same dream. Go to space. I had the shuttle program to look at and say "I could be a part of that". I studied hard, and ended up a computer engineer. I didn't go into space, but I did well.
Now, there's nothing to point at and say "Hey, you could do that" that inspires her as a kid. I can tell her all about software engineering, or genetic engineering, or energy research. But none of that's as cool as "going to space". She'll still end up OK because she's smart, but I don't think she'll apply herself as well as if she had a loftier goal. And there's no amount of "parenting" that will change that.
First, you shouldn't have (intentionally) crushed your daughter's dreams like that.
All I did was tell her the truth: "They're cancelling Ares". She broke down on just that because she's smart enough to understand the implications.
Second, if you'd bothered to have done some reading, you'd find Obama's administration appears to be choosing the Flexible Path to Mars plan, recommended by the Augustine Commission. They're just killing Constellation because the money required to complete the program does not exist.
I have done my reading ( http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/420994main_2011_Budget_Administrator_Remarks.pdf [PDF]) . In Charlie Bolden's speech today on the budget, they didn't announce any program to replace Constellation, flexible path or otherwise.
Yes, they're going to spend $3 billion over five years on heavy lift R&D, but there's no overall program to direct that research. All Bolden said was that funding was directed towards "the clear goal of taking us farther and faster into space". He didn't say where or when.
It is my belief that without a Kennedy-like mandate, that R&D funding will be spent all over the place and, once it's spent, we won't be any closer to human exploration beyond low Earth orbit.
They used the Augustine Commission to kill off Constellation, but they didn't pick one of the alternatives or suggest something new. If all they're doing is R&D, it'll be easy for Congress to go after that funding later to pay for some pet project.
The only good news is the extension of the ISS until 2020. But other than that, meh...
The bottom line is we have no long-term strategy for human exploration beyond LEO. Unless you call some paltry R&D and "hope" that commercial industry picks up the slack a strategy.
With the cut of Ares and other international status seeking nonsense, NASA can concentrate on their roots of science, exploration, and aeronautics.
Actually, this pretty much kills the exploration part.
It's not so much that he's killing the Constellation program (which includes Ares), but that there's nothing to replace it. This is going to set us back by decades. We may not go back to the moon until the next century, if ever.
What gets me is not so much the fact that we'll be using commercial rockets to get to the ISS, but that we now have no strategy for getting back to the Moon and/or going to Mars.
When I told my 10-year-old daughter that Obama had killed the program that was her best chance to travel to the Moon or Mars, she literally started crying. How am I supposed to keep her interested in math and science in school when the only thing she's ever wanted to do has been taken away from her?
Yes, I know her actual chance of going was pretty slim, but at least there was a chance. And that was enough to encourage her to work hard in school. Now what? Now she doesn't know what she wants to do and that means a higher chance of her ending up flipping burgers instead of pursuing her dreams.
Fuck you, Obama, and your nearsightedness.
Yep. I didn't know who he was before. Now I know he's a first-class prick.
Yeah, he claims a custom "Farmville" apps is awesome. I guess some people are easily amused. But the rest of the specs seem pretty much in line. We'll see in a little bit.
Jason Calacanis got his tablet 10 days ago
http://twitter.com/jason
Highlights:
- $599, $699, $799 depending on size and memory
- iPhone OS with multitasking
- OLED screen (no size given)
- Verizon and ATT for 3G, WiFi
- Front and back cameras for video conferencing
- Thumbpad on each side for mouse gestures
- Fingerprint scanner for login with up to five profiles
- TV/Monitor output and wireless keyboard
- HDTV Tuner with PVR
- Solar panel for recharging (more a gimmick)
- Battery life is "great" in ebook mode, 2-3 hours otherwise
- No word on name