We should be able to buy one of these cars in the US. It's only fair to sell cars here that are subsidized by being manufactured cheap in India, without labor or environmental protections there, since Indians subsidize their competitively low labor rates (there and while "visiting labor" here) with those same cheaper institutions.
Er, we'd build those things. And not overnight. Who gave you the idea that I was asking NASA to look up "giant space telescope factory in space" in the Yellow Pages or something?
We don't need a space factory for paper clips. But especially since big telescope mirrors are now evidently hard up against manufacturing limits we have here on Earth, but are looser in space, we should get started doing it where it's better done.
If the Moon had a solar energy base powering manufacturing, that would be great competition to Earth manufacture. Especially once Earth manufacture shows its true costs, especially in pollution.
And that solar energy base could send power back to Earth, replacing terrestrial fuels or real estate consumed by wind, solar, hydroelectric and other alternatives.
There is going to be a point where our investment in space energy and manufacturing pays off hugely. We're already probably at a low plateau for our launching costs, which are still pretty high. And manufacturing some objects and materials requiring purity or precision, like this telescope mirror, is already hitting some limits of terrestrial manufacturing.
So I expect the point where the investment is compelling is pretty close already. The question is whether the US wants to let some rival nation get the jump on us, and bank the first mover advantage (standing on the shoulders of all we've already invested for the world to see). I know I want us to own it.
And for the next 20 telescopes? Vastly bigger and better than any we can build to launch from Earth?
How about the rest of the space industry, like pharmaceuticals, other zero-G/vacuum manufacture, and solar energy collectors, all for returning products to Earth. How about a Lunar base and factory from which to make and launch the rest of what we launch across the Solar System, including to Mars, and outside to interstellar space? A network of comms satellites for science and eventual travel, and perhaps industry among the other planets.
Especially solar power collectors/transmitters would be the next step after we understand the basic science behind space industrial engineering. The value of that, both in the energy and its geopolitical benefits (security, peace, minimal pollution, the pride of getting our of our energy/pollution dead end), is worth quite a lot of investment. Especially with an American or American-led brand on it.
This is the gateway. We are standing on the threshold of projects that are starting to be better performed in space, with the technology to do it. The first project is going to cost way more than that project will return directly. But it will get us started on the much bigger project of industrializing space, with its incalculable returns.
Or we can plod along. And let the military define space industrialization instead of consumer products and energy. Or let rivals like Russia, China or Europe do either - or both - while we're stuck in the 20th Century, in which we made the investments that got those rivals started to pass us.
The Mayflower is a bad comparison. The Jamestown colony expedition was a better one, because that was a really pioneering beachhead that indeed did require a large capital expense by the British. Though really the comparison is to the Spanish colonizers who came 100 years earlier, to S America, who bore a much bigger capital investment the British benefited from later, as others (like surely the Europeans, Russians and Chinese) will in space from us.
But even there the comparison isn't good. Because the jump across the Atlantic didn't require as much capital investment as orbital/Lunar industry will, compared to the home budgets in either century. Though the jump out of the gravity well will return on the investment much faster and bigger than the Atlantic colonization - or rather the Atlantic industrialization starting in the late 1700s that is really the comparison to building things in space, now that we've been sending probes and missions there for almost 50 years.
Why not build this thing in space? Either in orbit or, if the lack of a planet for infrastructure is too hard (or too premature for our skills), build it on the Moon and then launch it into Earth orbit from there. The microgravity of orbit, and the near zero atmosphere (especially in orbit) or just the lower gravity of the Moon, should allow more defect-free building. And building in space seems to offer easier and cheaper testing, with the real environment right there.
It seems to me that they could build really huge telescopes that way. And they'd kickstart space manufacturing of all kinds of stuff. Which seems like the most valuable role of NASA, including all the new science they could launch from that space based platform.
There's a difference between a degree in religion, which is taught as critical analysis and comparative analysis of a religion, and not indoctrination, and a Master's degree in "how to pretend crude metaphysics is science".
If I posted that a Master's degree in perpetual motion was a great way to spend some time making something out of nothing, that wouldn't be a "troll", either. That would be mockery of a sham.
It's sad that your degree in religion, that you claim was earned by rigorous analysis of actual value, has certified you despite your willingness to call a Creationism Masters "education" and not "snake oil". You seem to have got too much mere belief left in you, not properly clarified into minimal necessary faith or facts from logic and evidence. Clearly there's a market for Creationism degrees, and other shams appealing to the market with just a "religion" brand on it, regardless of its flimflam content.
No. It wasn't leaked until too late. These conspiracists got away with it. The coincidence theorists insisted they couldn't have kept it secret long enough to get away with it, but they did. While the coincidence theorists were insisting that, these conspiracists were safe.
The social engineering here would not have worked on either marked paper deposited in locked boxes or mechanical lever machines. Saying so is crazy, since it's wrong, has no basis, and is the product of only buying into a delusion that voting can't be secured.
Further, I did not say that everyone but me was wrong. Far from it: there were many of us. There were, however, way too many of us shouting us down, calling us crazy like you just did. And you were all wrong to say it's impossible. You all helped them get away with it.
And you continue to stand on your obnoxious wrongness. You are wrong. Apologize now. Or admit that you're not important enough to voice your opinion in public again.
That article perfectly supports me. Its proven facts debunk the spin that insider election fraud conspiracies are impossible to keep secret long enough to get away with stealing the election. These crooks did, and there's no getting back the 2000, 2002 and 2004 results they stole. But throughout that time, people (like you) insisted that such conspiracies would have to have leaked. They didn't, and such talk helped them get away with it.
The 2008 election was won by Obama and most others by large margins. There is no evidence that election fraud (or disenfranchisement) was either widespread or had any effects on any results in 2008 - quite unlike 2000 and 2004, especially (but not exclusively) in Florida and Ohio. But yes, throughout this decade I have argued for better election security, especially paper trails. I was met by people insisting I was fighting an imaginary problem.
So I want to know what you said in 2000-2006 about protecting elections from election fraud conspiracies. And if you weren't either silent or speaking up to fix the broken system, I want your apology. Now.
What are the chances that it's putting out 1VDC? That would be 40uW:cm^2. Which would be 0.4W:m^2. The sunlight in the video looks like something like 200W:m^2 (sunlight indoors midafternoon in late American Winter). So that would be 0.2% efficiency. Which is 1% of expensive commercial cells. Impressive for a donut.
It might have helped here. Because for one, a voter verified paper ballot, or the process to record and collect it, would have been harder to bamboozle than this one, where the voter leaves after pressing a button that says "vote" (but which, they don't realize, has failed to commit their vote until after a fraudster changes it). This commit protocol was very easy to socially re-engineer. One where the voter checks paper they deposit is harder.
For another, there would be physical evidence of the different vote. This fraud had some extra complications, including some voters bribed to know they were part of a fraud. There's more chance the paper would have some evidence of discrepancies than the purely digital and rewritable records used here.
Paper isn't proof against exploit, if the protocol has holes. But paper closes a lot of holes. And it's also a physical object to show to a jury or a TV audience, which has a lot more political backlash than a story about swapped bits. Paper is almost always better, even if it's not perfect. But we're not aiming for perfection, just adequacy.
The butterflies at least are paper, so there's physical evidence of both the voter's actions, and of later actions in the paper. The layout of the butterflies printed "GUI" has its own problems, as well as the consistency of mechanically marking them. But at least they are a lot harder to change without notice.
What we need is "voter verified" balloting. We should use the machines only to uniformly mark a physical ballot record. Perhaps a separate machine to read back the marked physical ballot to the voter for confirmation, if that confirmation machine is completely inspectable and testable by both experts and anyone in the public who's interested. Then the voter puts their uniformly marked and personally verified physical ballot into a box. They can mechanically count those ballots for early results, but they should be counted by people for the binding result, even if that takes a few days (distributed among the people in each district).
This stuff isn't hard, it just requires rigor. It's extremely important. We need to do it right, or we won't get much else done right.
They were wrong. They said that such a conspiracy couldn't be kept secret from election time to the time they were denying such a conspiracy could exist. But here's just one that was kept secret from at latest 2000 until now. So while they were denying it, this conspiracy was still secret.
There is no reason to believe that there aren't many more of these conspiracies out there, still secret just as this one was through this whole decade. Denying those now on the "too hard to keep secret" principle now is just part of a coverup, not any kind of reasonable assumption.
Power density costs money, but is it necessary? Maybe his panels do get only 25% the watts per square meter as an expensive panel. But they get something like 3x the watts per dollar. To get the same wattage, you do need 4x the area with his cheap panels. But since solar power in the Netherlands is about 100W:m^2 average across the year, a 1KW home gets in 10m^2 sunlight its consumption (before cell inefficiency, and using inefficient storage/retrieval HW). If he's actually getting 62W:m^2, he needs 16.2m^2. If that gets averaged by day/night, and is close to the average daylight (he posted 2 days before the equinox), and accounts for weather, then maybe he needs 200m^2 (that's 5% averaged annual efficiency). That's only 14x14m, about the size of a home that consumes 1KW.
When roof space costs more than these cheap cells save, they're worth the higher cost. Or if the generated power can be sold back to the grid, then the higher density can be worth the higher cost (especially over time). But sometimes, cheap low density can be worth it. Which is why dye sensitized and other cheap, (relatively) inefficient generating materials are interesting. If they can generate power long enough to pay for themselves (including their lifecycle energy cost), they can make "hay" while the Sun shines, even as we make more dense cells become cheaper.
I want everyone who sneered at me in 2000 and 2004, saying "changing those electronic machine votes would require a conspiracy so vast, with nobody ever leaking, that it's impossible, you're crazy, just get over it" to apologize now.
Not just to me, though I want that now. But also to the entire country, for standing in the way of fixing this basic corruption that destroys democracy that should be ancient history by now.
Apologize. Preferably door to door. But a reply here would start to count.
"Old glass": they're talking about taking the old glass, not the new glass. Usually the renovators have to pay to dump the old glass, or just spend time carting it to the trash. It's not stealing if you ask.
Obama's CIO didn't "step down because of corruption in his home team". He stepped aside for a few days after someone in his "home team" was suddenly and without warning arrested for charges that had nothing to do with the CIO. An arrest that was somehow timed to happen days after the CIO started, though the investigation was going on for months.
The CIO has no evidence against him, nothing indicating he ever did anything related to the arrest (which itself is not proof of that other guy's guilt). All he did was delay his start as CIO for a few days so that could all become clear. And now he's back, because it had nothing to do with him. Except perhaps he spent some time helping the investigation find its way around his old office, since he'd just been running it.
I understand you're not American. But if you're following the rest of our thrashing as closely as you evidently followed the "America's CIO's rocky start" story, you should look closer before you jump to conclusions. Because you were pretty wrong on that one, and the other one is much more important, and much more complex.
One property of a mobius ring is that if the ribbon is cut along its length, it falls apart into two interlocked loops, each new ring passing through the hole in the middle of the other (two rings simply linked together).
If the original band that gets twisted and joined into a mobius ring had a weak "seam" down its middle, perhaps other chemical/physical means could then split it along that seam. Like perhaps an enzyme solution working on a protein seam "doped" into the middle of the graphene strips alongside the seam. That process might be a lot cheaper/easier than some other process that directly forms linked loops of graphene rings.
Perhaps a wide band could be split many times into a highly interlocked set of rings. Perhaps just pairs of rings could have interesting properties in a material of many of them. Perhaps there's more advanced topological methods that can split a mobius ring into a very long series of linked rings.
What good is any of this HTSP tech if the computer still can't parse speech into text or symbols? Speech recognition doesn't really work, not accurately enough for mass use on Web PCs or mobile phones. Even speech synthesis, a much easier problem, isn't really that great.
I smell another IBM submarine patent farm, not an actual "innovation factory".
X.org has posted some project ideas for Google Summer of Code projects, including "VDPAU state tracker for Gallium. Admit it, it would be pretty cool."
I pointed out that I'm playing MPG and AVI, not H.264. If you're going to use H.264 as proof this doesn't work, you're not really very logical. Therefore probably not really a good programmer.
The many videos I watch without a problem, including 1080p ones, are the proof. Proof that there's more than just "hope" for GPU accelaration, there's actually running GPU acceleration (though I wouldn't call it GPU).
You are just speculating about something you clearly don't have a grip on. Why don't you just install the driver on a PS3 and try it yourself, instead of wasting both our time. The sparse PS3 Linux scene is shrunken in no small part because of all the naysayers in an echochamber, belied by the people who actually do something themselves and see the results. Maybe I sound like unsolo because I've actaully done that, and have gotten the benefit. You're on your own with your choice.
The evidence is the dozens of hours of MPEG and AVI I've watched, from SD through 720p and 1080p HD. If you want to see that evidence yourself, install the driver and test some video. NASA has some great footage from a shuttle launch that puts 1080p to the test, and is a joy to watch.
You don't know what you're talking about. You're insulting, calling me a liar. Just go test it yourself. If indeed you are not lying, and you actually can program some codec on the SPEs, you can prove that to me by adding H.264 to the driver, or finishing its X driver version, helping with the mesa3d Cell project, or any of the many other tasks remaining for someone as smart and capable as you on the fully capable PS3 Cell platform.
Slashdot Mirror
We should be able to buy one of these cars in the US. It's only fair to sell cars here that are subsidized by being manufactured cheap in India, without labor or environmental protections there, since Indians subsidize their competitively low labor rates (there and while "visiting labor" here) with those same cheaper institutions.
Er, we'd build those things. And not overnight. Who gave you the idea that I was asking NASA to look up "giant space telescope factory in space" in the Yellow Pages or something?
We don't need a space factory for paper clips. But especially since big telescope mirrors are now evidently hard up against manufacturing limits we have here on Earth, but are looser in space, we should get started doing it where it's better done.
If the Moon had a solar energy base powering manufacturing, that would be great competition to Earth manufacture. Especially once Earth manufacture shows its true costs, especially in pollution.
And that solar energy base could send power back to Earth, replacing terrestrial fuels or real estate consumed by wind, solar, hydroelectric and other alternatives.
There is going to be a point where our investment in space energy and manufacturing pays off hugely. We're already probably at a low plateau for our launching costs, which are still pretty high. And manufacturing some objects and materials requiring purity or precision, like this telescope mirror, is already hitting some limits of terrestrial manufacturing.
So I expect the point where the investment is compelling is pretty close already. The question is whether the US wants to let some rival nation get the jump on us, and bank the first mover advantage (standing on the shoulders of all we've already invested for the world to see). I know I want us to own it.
And for the next 20 telescopes? Vastly bigger and better than any we can build to launch from Earth?
How about the rest of the space industry, like pharmaceuticals, other zero-G/vacuum manufacture, and solar energy collectors, all for returning products to Earth. How about a Lunar base and factory from which to make and launch the rest of what we launch across the Solar System, including to Mars, and outside to interstellar space? A network of comms satellites for science and eventual travel, and perhaps industry among the other planets.
Especially solar power collectors/transmitters would be the next step after we understand the basic science behind space industrial engineering. The value of that, both in the energy and its geopolitical benefits (security, peace, minimal pollution, the pride of getting our of our energy/pollution dead end), is worth quite a lot of investment. Especially with an American or American-led brand on it.
This is the gateway. We are standing on the threshold of projects that are starting to be better performed in space, with the technology to do it. The first project is going to cost way more than that project will return directly. But it will get us started on the much bigger project of industrializing space, with its incalculable returns.
Or we can plod along. And let the military define space industrialization instead of consumer products and energy. Or let rivals like Russia, China or Europe do either - or both - while we're stuck in the 20th Century, in which we made the investments that got those rivals started to pass us.
The Mayflower is a bad comparison. The Jamestown colony expedition was a better one, because that was a really pioneering beachhead that indeed did require a large capital expense by the British. Though really the comparison is to the Spanish colonizers who came 100 years earlier, to S America, who bore a much bigger capital investment the British benefited from later, as others (like surely the Europeans, Russians and Chinese) will in space from us.
But even there the comparison isn't good. Because the jump across the Atlantic didn't require as much capital investment as orbital/Lunar industry will, compared to the home budgets in either century. Though the jump out of the gravity well will return on the investment much faster and bigger than the Atlantic colonization - or rather the Atlantic industrialization starting in the late 1700s that is really the comparison to building things in space, now that we've been sending probes and missions there for almost 50 years.
Why not build this thing in space? Either in orbit or, if the lack of a planet for infrastructure is too hard (or too premature for our skills), build it on the Moon and then launch it into Earth orbit from there. The microgravity of orbit, and the near zero atmosphere (especially in orbit) or just the lower gravity of the Moon, should allow more defect-free building. And building in space seems to offer easier and cheaper testing, with the real environment right there.
It seems to me that they could build really huge telescopes that way. And they'd kickstart space manufacturing of all kinds of stuff. Which seems like the most valuable role of NASA, including all the new science they could launch from that space based platform.
There's a difference between a degree in religion, which is taught as critical analysis and comparative analysis of a religion, and not indoctrination, and a Master's degree in "how to pretend crude metaphysics is science".
If I posted that a Master's degree in perpetual motion was a great way to spend some time making something out of nothing, that wouldn't be a "troll", either. That would be mockery of a sham.
It's sad that your degree in religion, that you claim was earned by rigorous analysis of actual value, has certified you despite your willingness to call a Creationism Masters "education" and not "snake oil". You seem to have got too much mere belief left in you, not properly clarified into minimal necessary faith or facts from logic and evidence. Clearly there's a market for Creationism degrees, and other shams appealing to the market with just a "religion" brand on it, regardless of its flimflam content.
Sounds like a class where I can just make up answers out of absolutely nothing. It's a miracle anyone passes!
No. It wasn't leaked until too late. These conspiracists got away with it. The coincidence theorists insisted they couldn't have kept it secret long enough to get away with it, but they did. While the coincidence theorists were insisting that, these conspiracists were safe.
The social engineering here would not have worked on either marked paper deposited in locked boxes or mechanical lever machines. Saying so is crazy, since it's wrong, has no basis, and is the product of only buying into a delusion that voting can't be secured.
Further, I did not say that everyone but me was wrong. Far from it: there were many of us. There were, however, way too many of us shouting us down, calling us crazy like you just did. And you were all wrong to say it's impossible. You all helped them get away with it.
And you continue to stand on your obnoxious wrongness. You are wrong. Apologize now. Or admit that you're not important enough to voice your opinion in public again.
That article perfectly supports me. Its proven facts debunk the spin that insider election fraud conspiracies are impossible to keep secret long enough to get away with stealing the election. These crooks did, and there's no getting back the 2000, 2002 and 2004 results they stole. But throughout that time, people (like you) insisted that such conspiracies would have to have leaked. They didn't, and such talk helped them get away with it.
The 2008 election was won by Obama and most others by large margins. There is no evidence that election fraud (or disenfranchisement) was either widespread or had any effects on any results in 2008 - quite unlike 2000 and 2004, especially (but not exclusively) in Florida and Ohio. But yes, throughout this decade I have argued for better election security, especially paper trails. I was met by people insisting I was fighting an imaginary problem.
So I want to know what you said in 2000-2006 about protecting elections from election fraud conspiracies. And if you weren't either silent or speaking up to fix the broken system, I want your apology. Now.
What are the chances that it's putting out 1VDC? That would be 40uW:cm^2. Which would be 0.4W:m^2. The sunlight in the video looks like something like 200W:m^2 (sunlight indoors midafternoon in late American Winter). So that would be 0.2% efficiency. Which is 1% of expensive commercial cells. Impressive for a donut.
It might have helped here. Because for one, a voter verified paper ballot, or the process to record and collect it, would have been harder to bamboozle than this one, where the voter leaves after pressing a button that says "vote" (but which, they don't realize, has failed to commit their vote until after a fraudster changes it). This commit protocol was very easy to socially re-engineer. One where the voter checks paper they deposit is harder.
For another, there would be physical evidence of the different vote. This fraud had some extra complications, including some voters bribed to know they were part of a fraud. There's more chance the paper would have some evidence of discrepancies than the purely digital and rewritable records used here.
Paper isn't proof against exploit, if the protocol has holes. But paper closes a lot of holes. And it's also a physical object to show to a jury or a TV audience, which has a lot more political backlash than a story about swapped bits. Paper is almost always better, even if it's not perfect. But we're not aiming for perfection, just adequacy.
The butterflies at least are paper, so there's physical evidence of both the voter's actions, and of later actions in the paper. The layout of the butterflies printed "GUI" has its own problems, as well as the consistency of mechanically marking them. But at least they are a lot harder to change without notice.
What we need is "voter verified" balloting. We should use the machines only to uniformly mark a physical ballot record. Perhaps a separate machine to read back the marked physical ballot to the voter for confirmation, if that confirmation machine is completely inspectable and testable by both experts and anyone in the public who's interested. Then the voter puts their uniformly marked and personally verified physical ballot into a box. They can mechanically count those ballots for early results, but they should be counted by people for the binding result, even if that takes a few days (distributed among the people in each district).
This stuff isn't hard, it just requires rigor. It's extremely important. We need to do it right, or we won't get much else done right.
They were wrong. They said that such a conspiracy couldn't be kept secret from election time to the time they were denying such a conspiracy could exist. But here's just one that was kept secret from at latest 2000 until now. So while they were denying it, this conspiracy was still secret.
There is no reason to believe that there aren't many more of these conspiracies out there, still secret just as this one was through this whole decade. Denying those now on the "too hard to keep secret" principle now is just part of a coverup, not any kind of reasonable assumption.
Power density costs money, but is it necessary? Maybe his panels do get only 25% the watts per square meter as an expensive panel. But they get something like 3x the watts per dollar. To get the same wattage, you do need 4x the area with his cheap panels. But since solar power in the Netherlands is about 100W:m^2 average across the year, a 1KW home gets in 10m^2 sunlight its consumption (before cell inefficiency, and using inefficient storage/retrieval HW). If he's actually getting 62W:m^2, he needs 16.2m^2. If that gets averaged by day/night, and is close to the average daylight (he posted 2 days before the equinox), and accounts for weather, then maybe he needs 200m^2 (that's 5% averaged annual efficiency). That's only 14x14m, about the size of a home that consumes 1KW.
When roof space costs more than these cheap cells save, they're worth the higher cost. Or if the generated power can be sold back to the grid, then the higher density can be worth the higher cost (especially over time). But sometimes, cheap low density can be worth it. Which is why dye sensitized and other cheap, (relatively) inefficient generating materials are interesting. If they can generate power long enough to pay for themselves (including their lifecycle energy cost), they can make "hay" while the Sun shines, even as we make more dense cells become cheaper.
I want everyone who sneered at me in 2000 and 2004, saying "changing those electronic machine votes would require a conspiracy so vast, with nobody ever leaking, that it's impossible, you're crazy, just get over it" to apologize now.
Not just to me, though I want that now. But also to the entire country, for standing in the way of fixing this basic corruption that destroys democracy that should be ancient history by now.
Apologize. Preferably door to door. But a reply here would start to count.
"Old glass": they're talking about taking the old glass, not the new glass. Usually the renovators have to pay to dump the old glass, or just spend time carting it to the trash. It's not stealing if you ask.
That's a wicked cool hack (hacking donuts!). I can't read the voltmeter at the end. How much power is that (maybe 1cm^2) cell putting out?
The adjective is "Democratic", as in "Democratic governor". Not "Democrat governor".
Obama's CIO didn't "step down because of corruption in his home team". He stepped aside for a few days after someone in his "home team" was suddenly and without warning arrested for charges that had nothing to do with the CIO. An arrest that was somehow timed to happen days after the CIO started, though the investigation was going on for months.
The CIO has no evidence against him, nothing indicating he ever did anything related to the arrest (which itself is not proof of that other guy's guilt). All he did was delay his start as CIO for a few days so that could all become clear. And now he's back, because it had nothing to do with him. Except perhaps he spent some time helping the investigation find its way around his old office, since he'd just been running it.
I understand you're not American. But if you're following the rest of our thrashing as closely as you evidently followed the "America's CIO's rocky start" story, you should look closer before you jump to conclusions. Because you were pretty wrong on that one, and the other one is much more important, and much more complex.
One property of a mobius ring is that if the ribbon is cut along its length, it falls apart into two interlocked loops, each new ring passing through the hole in the middle of the other (two rings simply linked together).
If the original band that gets twisted and joined into a mobius ring had a weak "seam" down its middle, perhaps other chemical/physical means could then split it along that seam. Like perhaps an enzyme solution working on a protein seam "doped" into the middle of the graphene strips alongside the seam. That process might be a lot cheaper/easier than some other process that directly forms linked loops of graphene rings.
Perhaps a wide band could be split many times into a highly interlocked set of rings. Perhaps just pairs of rings could have interesting properties in a material of many of them. Perhaps there's more advanced topological methods that can split a mobius ring into a very long series of linked rings.
What good is any of this HTSP tech if the computer still can't parse speech into text or symbols? Speech recognition doesn't really work, not accurately enough for mass use on Web PCs or mobile phones. Even speech synthesis, a much easier problem, isn't really that great.
I smell another IBM submarine patent farm, not an actual "innovation factory".
X.org has posted some project ideas for Google Summer of Code projects, including "VDPAU state tracker for Gallium. Admit it, it would be pretty cool."
I pointed out that I'm playing MPG and AVI, not H.264. If you're going to use H.264 as proof this doesn't work, you're not really very logical. Therefore probably not really a good programmer.
The many videos I watch without a problem, including 1080p ones, are the proof. Proof that there's more than just "hope" for GPU accelaration, there's actually running GPU acceleration (though I wouldn't call it GPU).
You are just speculating about something you clearly don't have a grip on. Why don't you just install the driver on a PS3 and try it yourself, instead of wasting both our time. The sparse PS3 Linux scene is shrunken in no small part because of all the naysayers in an echochamber, belied by the people who actually do something themselves and see the results. Maybe I sound like unsolo because I've actaully done that, and have gotten the benefit. You're on your own with your choice.
The evidence is the dozens of hours of MPEG and AVI I've watched, from SD through 720p and 1080p HD. If you want to see that evidence yourself, install the driver and test some video. NASA has some great footage from a shuttle launch that puts 1080p to the test, and is a joy to watch.
You don't know what you're talking about. You're insulting, calling me a liar. Just go test it yourself. If indeed you are not lying, and you actually can program some codec on the SPEs, you can prove that to me by adding H.264 to the driver, or finishing its X driver version, helping with the mesa3d Cell project, or any of the many other tasks remaining for someone as smart and capable as you on the fully capable PS3 Cell platform.