If this guy has any problems with the FAA he might want to do what the US navy did with some of their test. I am not talking about launching from a Submarine or ship but having the rocket sit in the water with its nose up out of the water 5 or 10 feet or so. Like the way a half-full coke bottle sits in the water. All you need is to make it bottom heavy and the rest of the rocket lighter than water. This method has many benefits it is very stable not moving much at all even in heavy seas. It is miles from houses and people you have plenty of water to put out fires, and the government has no real jurisdiction to stop you. The rocket will need to be water proof but the good part is that it is less stressful on the rocket frame to have it supported in water than in the air. Well I wish the guy luck he is going to need it.
Re:Full screen video over the Internet. not likely
on
The Great Internet Con
·
· Score: 1
I am Mostly talking about live video. You can and people do buffer video to view. This is nothing more than File transfers like FTP no magic there. If you are willing to wait for the down load and it can take some time it is the only way to do high quality one way video over the Internet. The thing that made the T1 work was that it was a point to point connection with no other traffic. So it could be made and was deterministic. If you want live news and TV like Video? Doing it over the Internet and by passing the Cable companies deterministic network is not an option at this time.
It seems that more and more people want full screen Video over the internet. Well I truly think it will be a while before this happens. The problem is not bandwidth but the undeterministic nature of Internet traffic (what some venders like to call the Quality of service.) I maintained a distance learning classroom for a University that had two full screen connection (one each way) on a signal T1 1.5 MB using H320. It ran as smooth and was a clear as any cable TV connection. I tried to do the same with H323 on a 100TX connection over IP using 350MHZ P2 and software compression and we are back to very small unclear picture. Add just a small amount of competing traffic and things went south quick. The H232 connection was good with hardware compression if there was no competing traffic but was never as good as H320 over a T1 at 100mb!! Forget doing this on the Internet. This problem is well understood. I wish I knew how he was able to get as fare as he did with out some one like me asking OK where is the magic and how do get around the deterministic problem.
Now we have a map of what parts do what, it is time to crack the code so we can read and write DNA sequences. If we want John's DNA minus genetic defect plus red hair what do we change and how. The ability of mapping out chapters and passages in a book is not the same as reading a book or editing a book or writing a book. The First part is done. Now comes the good parts.
The point I wish to make is not something I think is happing but that it could happen and we all need to understand the problem and the solution. A close friend of mind told me of a story where Ken Thomson added back doors to UNIX by modifying the C compiler. The source code of the compiled programs where clean but the compiler added the back doors. He did this back in Bell Labs with the first C compiler. The whole in Free or Open Source software that is that you need to compile your program with a binary program not the source code. Even if you use GCC you still need to compile your fist GCC program with some other binary compiler you must get and trust form somewhere. You are stuck in this chicken egg problem in which you must trust some one else's compiler. In turn the person or company you got the compiler from must trust someone elses compiler. If the government or anyone else wanted to crack into the GNU/Linux world they would make a compiler that put in back doors in to GNU Login, Telnet, FTP, etc programs even the Kernel. They have the source code and often not changed. They know what to do. They will be able to make the compiler know how to recognize and these programs and how to modify them. Now for the scary part they also know how to put this ability into GCC. So when you compile GCC it becomes as corrupt as the first compiler. There is no way to know about the first binary program the compiler you must be able to trust. The solution to fix this is clear. The first compiler should be written in assembler. This allows the program to be dissembled and checked. It can be a very simple compiler for you can add the other features by compiling your GCC code with it. This way you have clean source code and clean first binary compiler and clean system that can be proven to be free of back doors. This problem is a threat to closed source software as well but the lack of open source code makes it harder to know what the compiler needs to recognize and how it needs to modify the programs. With the use of an assembled compiler you can take this weakness of Free, Open Source software and make it a very strong point. I do not know if a C compiler written is assembler is available. Maybe one needs to be written for every platform x86, PPC so on. I know that everyone I know and myself who has and does compile programs always use and trust their first binary compiler. Is this happening I do not know but as long as we don't have a provable clean first compiler we will never know.
Jack Ass Knows more than he is saying and everyone knows that. He did not think he would have to go to court. This is the problem with slapp's if some one calls your bluff and drags you ass in to court you end up looking like an ass hole. The MPAA is willing to do anything to get the control on how DVD's Are viewed back they lost. Too Bad!! don't like it use stronger encryption, Don't like it don't leave the Encryption key open to all to see (Thanks Xing). Or better yet don't use Technology and the Law to rob people of their choice and freedom. Jack loss the case on VCR's way back in the day. The DE CSS and the DMCA were setup for one propose to remove what we won and now have with Video Tape the ability to fast forward, have real rewind not that jerk around crap and stop the action with out permission. If he loses this he is gone and he knows that. I am looking forward to see him in court.
I apologize what I meant to say was: "I understand peoples need to have COREL Linux not go down the road to being closed software. I hope this makes the post more clear".
I understand peoples need to have Linux not go down the road to being closed software. I say this is not an issue. If a company makes big changes so what. If I like it I will use it, if I don't I will not. As long as I have a choice I can choice free software. The issue to me is will they make it hard to make my choice or remove that choice all together. We need to focus on design changes that protect or remove our ability to choice free software not on where the File type menu option is that is just immaterial
You are right. It is what the LAW says it is. No more no less. We need to look at what are we trying to gain with these laws. I say we need to stop looking at it as property. We should IMHO look at this subject as a right to make money from your work. It does not help us as a society to let people use your work at your lose and there gain. It is an unfair competitive practice. The ones doing all the work will go out of business and the others will lose their ability to use others work. So soon no more stuff made no more stuff to buy. This is what we are looking at protecting not some artificial concept of property. Look at it as a profit rights for fair competitive practices. People who want to twist the concept of Intellectual property would love to be able to control what you do with there interpretation of these LAWS even if what you do does not compete with them as a business. Mean while the original intent of such LAWS are being undermined by companies who use them to lock out competitors and hurt customers. Think of it as a right to profit from your work not property.
Slashdot Mirror
If this guy has any problems with the FAA he might want to do what the US navy did with some of their test. I am not talking about launching from a Submarine or ship but having the rocket sit in the water with its nose up out of the water 5 or 10 feet or so. Like the way a half-full coke bottle sits in the water. All you need is to make it bottom heavy and the rest of the rocket lighter than water. This method has many benefits it is very stable not moving much at all even in heavy seas. It is miles from houses and people you have plenty of water to put out fires, and the government has no real jurisdiction to stop you. The rocket will need to be water proof but the good part is that it is less stressful on the rocket frame to have it supported in water than in the air. Well I wish the guy luck he is going to need it.
I am Mostly talking about live video. You can and people do buffer video to view. This is nothing more than File transfers like FTP no magic there. If you are willing to wait for the down load and it can take some time it is the only way to do high quality one way video over the Internet. The thing that made the T1 work was that it was a point to point connection with no other traffic. So it could be made and was deterministic. If you want live news and TV like Video? Doing it over the Internet and by passing the Cable companies deterministic network is not an option at this time.
It seems that more and more people want full screen Video over the internet. Well I truly think it will be a while before this happens. The problem is not bandwidth but the undeterministic nature of Internet traffic (what some venders like to call the Quality of service.) I maintained a distance learning classroom for a University that had two full screen connection (one each way) on a signal T1 1.5 MB using H320. It ran as smooth and was a clear as any cable TV connection. I tried to do the same with H323 on a 100TX connection over IP using 350MHZ P2 and software compression and we are back to very small unclear picture. Add just a small amount of competing traffic and things went south quick. The H232 connection was good with hardware compression if there was no competing traffic but was never as good as H320 over a T1 at 100mb!! Forget doing this on the Internet. This problem is well understood. I wish I knew how he was able to get as fare as he did with out some one like me asking OK where is the magic and how do get around the deterministic problem.
Now we have a map of what parts do what, it is time to crack the code so we can read and write DNA sequences. If we want John's DNA minus genetic defect plus red hair what do we change and how. The ability of mapping out chapters and passages in a book is not the same as reading a book or editing a book or writing a book. The First part is done. Now comes the good parts.
The point I wish to make is not something I think is happing but that it could happen and we all need to understand the problem and the solution. A close friend of mind told me of a story where Ken Thomson added back doors to UNIX by modifying the C compiler. The source code of the compiled programs where clean but the compiler added the back doors. He did this back in Bell Labs with the first C compiler. The whole in Free or Open Source software that is that you need to compile your program with a binary program not the source code. Even if you use GCC you still need to compile your fist GCC program with some other binary compiler you must get and trust form somewhere. You are stuck in this chicken egg problem in which you must trust some one else's compiler. In turn the person or company you got the compiler from must trust someone elses compiler. If the government or anyone else wanted to crack into the GNU/Linux world they would make a compiler that put in back doors in to GNU Login, Telnet, FTP, etc programs even the Kernel. They have the source code and often not changed. They know what to do. They will be able to make the compiler know how to recognize and these programs and how to modify them. Now for the scary part they also know how to put this ability into GCC. So when you compile GCC it becomes as corrupt as the first compiler. There is no way to know about the first binary program the compiler you must be able to trust. The solution to fix this is clear. The first compiler should be written in assembler. This allows the program to be dissembled and checked. It can be a very simple compiler for you can add the other features by compiling your GCC code with it. This way you have clean source code and clean first binary compiler and clean system that can be proven to be free of back doors. This problem is a threat to closed source software as well but the lack of open source code makes it harder to know what the compiler needs to recognize and how it needs to modify the programs. With the use of an assembled compiler you can take this weakness of Free, Open Source software and make it a very strong point. I do not know if a C compiler written is assembler is available. Maybe one needs to be written for every platform x86, PPC so on. I know that everyone I know and myself who has and does compile programs always use and trust their first binary compiler. Is this happening I do not know but as long as we don't have a provable clean first compiler we will never know.
Jack Ass Knows more than he is saying and everyone knows that. He did not think he would have to go to court. This is the problem with slapp's if some one calls your bluff and drags you ass in to court you end up looking like an ass hole. The MPAA is willing to do anything to get the control on how DVD's Are viewed back they lost. Too Bad!! don't like it use stronger encryption, Don't like it don't leave the Encryption key open to all to see (Thanks Xing). Or better yet don't use Technology and the Law to rob people of their choice and freedom. Jack loss the case on VCR's way back in the day. The DE CSS and the DMCA were setup for one propose to remove what we won and now have with Video Tape the ability to fast forward, have real rewind not that jerk around crap and stop the action with out permission. If he loses this he is gone and he knows that. I am looking forward to see him in court.
I apologize what I meant to say was: "I understand peoples need to have COREL Linux not go down the road to being closed software. I hope this makes the post more clear".
I understand peoples need to have Linux not go down the road to being closed software. I say this is not an issue. If a company makes big changes so what. If I like it I will use it, if I don't I will not. As long as I have a choice I can choice free software. The issue to me is will they make it hard to make my choice or remove that choice all together. We need to focus on design changes that protect or remove our ability to choice free software not on where the File type menu option is that is just immaterial
You are right. It is what the LAW says it is. No more no less. We need to look at what are we trying to gain with these laws. I say we need to stop looking at it as property. We should IMHO look at this subject as a right to make money from your work. It does not help us as a society to let people use your work at your lose and there gain. It is an unfair competitive practice. The ones doing all the work will go out of business and the others will lose their ability to use others work. So soon no more stuff made no more stuff to buy. This is what we are looking at protecting not some artificial concept of property. Look at it as a profit rights for fair competitive practices. People who want to twist the concept of Intellectual property would love to be able to control what you do with there interpretation of these LAWS even if what you do does not compete with them as a business. Mean while the original intent of such LAWS are being undermined by companies who use them to lock out competitors and hurt customers. Think of it as a right to profit from your work not property.