Can we please not have links that go to crazy sites with silly programming that wants your password to other sites? How about just a straight link that gets the file. Why can't Slashdot just host the PDF?
He should file an appeal... in Canada. The US just established cross-border jurisdiction (a court order in one country can be applied to another), so it would now be valid.
After a brief 175 microsecond investigation, we have now discovered that Tom Corbett has been posting online on Slashdot heavily as some dude named Anonymous Coward.
My guns have been shot 99+% of their shooting time at pieces of hanging paper with circles drawn on them. But I guess that will just piss off the tree huggers because of all the paper wasted.
Actually it's a shame that sector 0 of an GPT disk doesn't contain code to load a boot manager that understands GPT to allow booting from a GPT disk with an old fashioned Bios. Or that some way for old style Bioses to boot from disks with a partition table with 64 bit LBAs in wasn't developed - MBR partitioning only has space for 32 bit LBAs. Which means no support for disks bigger than 2TB.
This is just a fault of boot loaders. If someone makes a boot loader that can fit on sector 0 along with the protective partition table, and understand the GPT or just hard codes some addresses to load more from regardless of partition tables, you're good to go.
With 128 partitions possible with GPT, there isn't any need for a boot loader to understand filesytems anymore. Just load stage 2 from either partition 1 or sector 34 (that's the one that follows the GPT). I also recommend starting partitions at multiples of 1 MB (that's multiple of 2048 sectors in the case of 512 byte sectors) to better fit into caching strategies and alignments that exist or will exist in both hardware and software. That leaves 2014 sectors for stage 2.
NOTHING is proven to be non-patent-encumbered. What we have to work with is the best information available. Dirac and Theora are both making such claims. The count claims appear meritless. But Dirac has more substantial big-entity backing. Check it out. And, yes, MJPEG has its uses. Dirac has a similar mode.
Look again at that law. It refers to "obscene language". Obscene language is not the same thing as profanity. The latter covers more kinds of language. If the police arrest someone who uttered profanity that was not obscenity, under this law, they have made a bad arrest. Read the original article. This is exactly the point that is being made by the ACLU.
Just to what extent is LimeWire really encouraging piracy? I don't use it so I wouldn't know. But from what I've seen, it is NOT encouraging people who are NOT pirates into becoming pirates. Instead, it IS encouraging people who are already pirates to come use their service instead. At this point the argument could go either way. That can be seen as facilitating piracy or at least profiting from it. OTOH, the argument could go that they are attracting pirates into gradually turn them into paying customers, who will eventually pay for content... e.g. defeating piracy by attrition.
Most of those solutions are in HARDWARE. But that may not be bad. Just make a video card with an OPEN INTERFACE that allows sending the H.264 video stream in, and display the decoded result of that stream at specified coordinates on the video output. Add on using the same video card for ENCODING (raw video stream in, compressed H.264 out, undisplayed). Just make sure the interface (description how the driver sends and receives data) is open and the problem is solved.
Alternatively, AMD could integrate this in their CPU/GPU combo chip, and have a killer product.
You get the source code and fix the bugs... and do peer review by releasing the source code to Slashdot so we can all make sure you did your job right.
What the standard SHOULD do is provide for at least ONE codec as a minimum requirement, to ensure that there is at least one format that ensures universal functionality. Then it can ALLOW any additional that others wish to use. That one minimum required codec must also be an unencumbered one to ensure free access by all browsers. This one minimum doesn't even need to be the best technology; it just needs to basically work and be usable.
Let me ask you this... what is the likelihood that, had the inventors of this patent (or set of patents) not done so, that someone else would have, even if not precisely identical (something about as good)? If the answer is "good" or "high", then I'd say the patent is really NOT an innovation worthy of a patent system that is supposed to be a balance between encouraging genuine innovation at the cost of taking the rights (of intellectual property) away from other inventors who just happen to create the same innovation.
How many Slashdot readers could, with no exposure to any existing video coding and compression methods, come up with one that works? My guess is a few could, if they'd just stop reading Slashdot for a few weeks and work on it.
I'm just saying that this principle works both ways. If there is to be a choice, there needs to be a choice in everything. I want to choose to view your video with another video player, or with just the browser itself (one that knows how to play videos directly). By using Flash as the content framework for a video, you are depriving me of that choice. Where there is shame on Apple for limiting the choice (as Adobe is suggesting), there is shame on every content maker using Flash to limit the choice of software.
I wanna view your content with a secure safe browser, too. If Apple gets sued by Adobe, then you deserve to get sued by internet users for taking away choice by making content that requires software to work. For example, if you use Flash to display video, are you going to also make every such video available in H.264, MPEG4, and Dirac?
No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.
No web site - no matter how big or how creative - should dictate what software I use to view content, or how I experience their content on the web.
If Adobe prevails on this basis, then I want to use the very same basis to force every web site that has video to also make the video available by a NON-FLASH means... so I can have my choice, too.
If he had an MCSE, then he didn't need to peddle pot, or whatever. Sure, if you are good at peddling pot and other drugs, you can make a LOT more money than the top MCSEs can ever dream of. But that's certainly not making use of an MCSE.
Once you are untrusted... and being a felon makes one untrusted... then you can't be trusted around anything you might know how to manipulate for your own benefit. And an MCSE just shouts "I know how to manipulate computers". IMHO, any felon should be stripped of their MCSE, or any other IT or engineering certification, and not allowed to get another for at least 10 years after release... 10 years of scraping sidewalks on the outside!
Slashdot Mirror
I don't have the legal skills to know which one is right, but ISOHunt is still not actually filtering.
For which country? The one the (proposed) order would have to be enforced in?
Can we please not have links that go to crazy sites with silly programming that wants your password to other sites? How about just a straight link that gets the file. Why can't Slashdot just host the PDF?
What country are YOU in? Do laws in OTHER countries apply to YOU when YOU are NOT in those other countries, at all?
And clueless about international borders.
He should file an appeal ... in Canada. The US just established cross-border jurisdiction (a court order in one country can be applied to another), so it would now be valid.
After a brief 175 microsecond investigation, we have now discovered that Tom Corbett has been posting online on Slashdot heavily as some dude named Anonymous Coward.
... or what? You gonna threaten CmdrTaco with arrest?
My guns have been shot 99+% of their shooting time at pieces of hanging paper with circles drawn on them. But I guess that will just piss off the tree huggers because of all the paper wasted.
(Score:-2147483648, Stupidest post ever seen on Slashdot)
Actually it's a shame that sector 0 of an GPT disk doesn't contain code to load a boot manager that understands GPT to allow booting from a GPT disk with an old fashioned Bios. Or that some way for old style Bioses to boot from disks with a partition table with 64 bit LBAs in wasn't developed - MBR partitioning only has space for 32 bit LBAs. Which means no support for disks bigger than 2TB.
This is just a fault of boot loaders. If someone makes a boot loader that can fit on sector 0 along with the protective partition table, and understand the GPT or just hard codes some addresses to load more from regardless of partition tables, you're good to go.
With 128 partitions possible with GPT, there isn't any need for a boot loader to understand filesytems anymore. Just load stage 2 from either partition 1 or sector 34 (that's the one that follows the GPT). I also recommend starting partitions at multiples of 1 MB (that's multiple of 2048 sectors in the case of 512 byte sectors) to better fit into caching strategies and alignments that exist or will exist in both hardware and software. That leaves 2014 sectors for stage 2.
NOTHING is proven to be non-patent-encumbered. What we have to work with is the best information available. Dirac and Theora are both making such claims. The count claims appear meritless. But Dirac has more substantial big-entity backing. Check it out. And, yes, MJPEG has its uses. Dirac has a similar mode.
Look again at that law. It refers to "obscene language". Obscene language is not the same thing as profanity. The latter covers more kinds of language. If the police arrest someone who uttered profanity that was not obscenity, under this law, they have made a bad arrest. Read the original article. This is exactly the point that is being made by the ACLU.
Just to what extent is LimeWire really encouraging piracy? I don't use it so I wouldn't know. But from what I've seen, it is NOT encouraging people who are NOT pirates into becoming pirates. Instead, it IS encouraging people who are already pirates to come use their service instead. At this point the argument could go either way. That can be seen as facilitating piracy or at least profiting from it. OTOH, the argument could go that they are attracting pirates into gradually turn them into paying customers, who will eventually pay for content ... e.g. defeating piracy by attrition.
The only thing these businesses are waiting for is a viable alternative to H.264.
Dirac is already here.
Most of those solutions are in HARDWARE. But that may not be bad. Just make a video card with an OPEN INTERFACE that allows sending the H.264 video stream in, and display the decoded result of that stream at specified coordinates on the video output. Add on using the same video card for ENCODING (raw video stream in, compressed H.264 out, undisplayed). Just make sure the interface (description how the driver sends and receives data) is open and the problem is solved.
Alternatively, AMD could integrate this in their CPU/GPU combo chip, and have a killer product.
You get the source code and fix the bugs ... and do peer review by releasing the source code to Slashdot so we can all make sure you did your job right.
Peer reviewed software is where it's at.
What the standard SHOULD do is provide for at least ONE codec as a minimum requirement, to ensure that there is at least one format that ensures universal functionality. Then it can ALLOW any additional that others wish to use. That one minimum required codec must also be an unencumbered one to ensure free access by all browsers. This one minimum doesn't even need to be the best technology; it just needs to basically work and be usable.
And what about Dirac?
Let me ask you this ... what is the likelihood that, had the inventors of this patent (or set of patents) not done so, that someone else would have, even if not precisely identical (something about as good)? If the answer is "good" or "high", then I'd say the patent is really NOT an innovation worthy of a patent system that is supposed to be a balance between encouraging genuine innovation at the cost of taking the rights (of intellectual property) away from other inventors who just happen to create the same innovation.
How many Slashdot readers could, with no exposure to any existing video coding and compression methods, come up with one that works? My guess is a few could, if they'd just stop reading Slashdot for a few weeks and work on it.
I just boycott all companies with 5 letter names beginning with 'A' and ending with 'e'. Problem solved.
I'm just saying that this principle works both ways. If there is to be a choice, there needs to be a choice in everything. I want to choose to view your video with another video player, or with just the browser itself (one that knows how to play videos directly). By using Flash as the content framework for a video, you are depriving me of that choice. Where there is shame on Apple for limiting the choice (as Adobe is suggesting), there is shame on every content maker using Flash to limit the choice of software.
I wanna view your content with a secure safe browser, too. If Apple gets sued by Adobe, then you deserve to get sued by internet users for taking away choice by making content that requires software to work. For example, if you use Flash to display video, are you going to also make every such video available in H.264, MPEG4, and Dirac?
No company -- no matter how big or how creative -- should dictate what you can create, how you create it, or what you can experience on the web.
No web site - no matter how big or how creative - should dictate what software I use to view content, or how I experience their content on the web.
If Adobe prevails on this basis, then I want to use the very same basis to force every web site that has video to also make the video available by a NON-FLASH means ... so I can have my choice, too.
If he had an MCSE, then he didn't need to peddle pot, or whatever. Sure, if you are good at peddling pot and other drugs, you can make a LOT more money than the top MCSEs can ever dream of. But that's certainly not making use of an MCSE.
Once you are untrusted ... and being a felon makes one untrusted ... then you can't be trusted around anything you might know how to manipulate for your own benefit. And an MCSE just shouts "I know how to manipulate computers". IMHO, any felon should be stripped of their MCSE, or any other IT or engineering certification, and not allowed to get another for at least 10 years after release ... 10 years of scraping sidewalks on the outside!
Exactly! ... as long as each prisoner has one of those PHBs overlooking them at all times, just like in the picture.