As a matter of fact, I'm using OS X right now. When I'm wearing my "proposal writer" hat, I sit in front of it 8 or 10 hours a day. This week, it's "proposal writer" time.
The revolutionary thing about Aqua isn't that it's pretty-- as you pointed out. It's how incredibly simple it is. That's why I balk at the idea of an interactive 3D UI. It's not simple, and it won't be simple until our input devices change dramatically. The mouse is an acceptable input device for now because it's not too hard for the mind to associate moving left-right-up-down on the tabletop with moving left-right-up-down on the screen. That's not too bad. But learning to navigate a 3D interface with a mouse is hard. You either have to throw in a number of new mouse buttons that alter the axis of focus as you move the mouse-- which is just heaven for us RSI sufferers, let me tell you-- or you end up "driving" or "flying" through the UI. That's not simple. It sucks.
On the other hand, a true 3D UI might make sense in an immersive environment. (So how do you spell "immersive," anyway?) I remember reading years ago about a Media Lab project called "Put That There" that combined some voice recognition technology with some kind of body-tracking technology. The idea is that you could point at a thing on a wall-sized screen and say "Put that..." and point somewhere else and say, "there." The computer would read your voice and your gesture to figure out what you meant. I don't know how far they took this, but it's a neat idea. Eerily similar to the "look at me! look at me!" computers in Minority Report.
So until our whole idea of what a computer is and how we interact with it changes, I think 3D UIs are going to continue to be a terrible idea.
What journey? To a fully native OpenGL-based 3D windowing environment.
I guess I must have a problem with my browser, 'cause I don't seem to have gotten the part of your comment where you explain why in the hell someone would want such a thing.
I don't see how that could be possible. Either your TV, or the STB, or your cables are defective.
A green tinge across the top of the screen? Are you using RGB or YUV component video? (I'm not familiar with either Philips or Samsung consumer gear.)
Whenever a part of the picture has a color drift relative to the rest of the picture, I suspect the tube or the yoke. My first guess would be that you're looking at a TV problem. If the problem were in the STB, it would show up on a scope. See if you can find a repair service provider who will hook your STB up to a component scope and look at the output signals. That should help you determine that it's not the STB.
As for "compatibility" between the two, we've been using YUV component analog video for decades. The bugs are effectively worked out of that particular system. If you plug any source of analog component video into any display that accepts it and you don't get the right result, one of either the display or the source, or the cables, is broken.
The demo you're talking about did not involve putting IP inside MPEG-2. It involved using the 19.4 Mbps signal to transmit arbitrary data packets instead of MPEG-2 transport stream packets. ATSC has a standard that defines IP over 8VSB, I believe. Some public television stations in my state are using it to deliver data to schools via their DTV transmission towers.
But that's not the point. Nobody has an MPEG-4 (or Windows Media, or whatever) decoder in their TV or STB. That's why you can't use MPEG-4 to encode broadcast HDTV content. It's not nothing to do with whether you can or can't put arbitrary data out through the DTV transmitter.
HA! you're joking right. A 20" veiewable area monitor (which can only do 1600x1200, not full 1080i) costs like 400+ more like 800+ for a good one. Plus about $100 for the videocard+part of computer. A TV that size costs like $100 or less.
That's completely wrong. Look really closely at your computer monitor. I mean, really, really closely. Get a magnifying glass if you have to. See all the little spots? Now compare that to an average TV. The TV can resolve, maybe, 300 or 400 lines of resolution, while the monitor can hold 1,200 or more. A $500 computer monitor can resolve a point about four times smaller than a $500 TV. The tubes in computer monitors are significantly more expensive to make, which is why you don't see 34" computer monitors for sale down at the CompUSA. So, size for size, an analog TV is a lot cheaper to the consumer than a computer monitor.
But if you normalize for that-- say, comparing a multisync computer monitor at 20" to a non-multisync one of the same size and basic feature set-- you find that the price difference is insignificant. Can you even buy non-multisync computer monitors any more?
So making a TV that can display all 18 HDTV formats (except for 1080/60p, which is just too dang much bandwidth) is only marginally more expensive than making one that can only show one of them.
The really cheap sets get around even that marginal cost by, as I said, converting every format internally to 1080/60i, so the tube itself and the associated electronics only have to display one format. But the TV itself is compatible with them all.
You do realize that displaying 24fps on a 60Hz display is a pain. DVD players do this, but with lots of hints from the stream, doing it with no hints is a pain. And I won't even touch trying to display an interlaced signal on a non-interlaced display and vice versa (think visible artifacts in motion)
And you do realize that the 59.94 Hz / 24 Hz problem was solved long ago. The right way to convert from 24 Hz to 59.94 Hz is to add 3:2 pulldown. Some people object to the 3:2, so you've got your re-interleaving algorithms that show 24 fps material in 59.94 fps progressive scan by slightly lengthening some frames.
A quality display device will show 24 fps progressive-scan material at 72 Hz, which eliminates the "judder" effect (something between a jitter and a stutter), but these devices aren't that common in the consumer world.
You're overstating things. It's not accurate to say that "digital sucks." It's pretty accurate to say that low-bit-rate, poorly compressed digital cable TV sucks.
For about a week, I subscribed to AT&T Broadband digital cable. I like rugby and Aussie rules football, and AT&T carried Fox Sports International as part of their basic channel line-up. So I signed up.
AT&T compresses Fox Sports International so much that you can see artifacts in the on-screen graphics. You have to turn that knob all the way to the left before you're compressing enough to see artifacts in non-moving parts of the picture.
So I fired AT&T and bought a DirecTV receiver. I pay $12 a month more, but I get the same channel, also delivered digitally, with much higher PQ. No more artifacts in the non-moving parts of the picture, and much less compression artifacting when the camera swish-pans or something.
Then there's HDTV. HDTV is digital, and it's compressed. It's compressed a lot, too, from over 1 Gbps down to 19.4 Mbps. That's about 50:1. But the picture is almost always crystal-clear, significantly better than DVD. It takes a lot to cause visible artifacting. One time I was watching a college football game in HD, and they cut to a shot of the kids in the stands waving their pom-poms. There was so much movement in the scene that, for a second, it broke up into total digital artifacting. But I only saw it because I was looking for it, and it was only on-screen for about ten frames.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Digital is a powerful force that can be used either for good or for evil. Broadcasting digital HDTV is good. Broadcasting pay-per-view programs at a megabit per second is evil.
Besides, dude, what the hell are you thinking trying to watch NTSC on a 40" TV?? The human eye can resolve about a point about six arc-seconds across. Given that NTSC only broadcasts 480 visible lines, you'd have to be, like, fifteen or twenty feet away from your 40" TV before you started seeing a decent picture. Any closer, and you're just looking at pixels.
How did you get moderated to 5? The problem of analog-only TVs has been around since we first started talking about converting to digital TV back in the late 80's. And the answer now is the same as it was then: market demand will lead to the widespread availability of inexpensive set-top boxes that take DTV in via OTA, satellite, cable, whatever, and down-convert it to analog composite or baseband TV for use with ancient sets.
Your inappropriate use of profanity aside, you're wrong.
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
The much-talked-about 18 ATSC formats are as follows:
1080 x 1920, 30i (meaning 1920 by 1080 pixels, 30 fps interlaced) 1080 x 1920, 30p 1080 x 1920, 24p 1280 x 720, 60p 1280 x 720, 30p 1280 x 720, 24p 480 x 704, 60p 480 x 704, 30i 480 x 704, 30p 480 x 704, 24p 480 x 704, 60p, anamorphic 480 x 704, 30i, anamorphic 480 x 704, 30p, anamorphic 480 x 704, 24p, anamorphic 480 x 640, 60p 480 x 640, 30i 480 x 640, 30p 480 x 640, 24p
So when people say "18 formats," they really mean a combinatorial of four resolutions, three or four frame rates, and one set of anamorphic modes. It's not that complicated.
Consider that fancy graphics card and multi-sync monitor on your desk. It can display 1280 x 1024 at 60 Hz, or at 72 Hz, or at 75 Hz, or at 85 Hz. Did it cost you a fortune? Not relatively, no. Same with HDTV. The formats do not any significant cost to the sets. Particularly considering most consumer sets out there only have one sync rate-- 60 Hz-- and one resolution-- 1080 x 1920. They convert all other formats internally to that display format.
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
There are several very important standards for digital TV broadcasting. Your assertion that there are "no standards at all" is just wrong. In particular, two standards define how digital TV works.
ATSC A/52 defines the Dolby AC-3 audio compression and encoding scheme. This is also known as "Dolby Digital." ATSC A/53 defines stuff like scanning formats, encoder functions, and the 8VSB transmission system.
In addition, there are lots of SMPTE standards that define various interfaces and formats related to DTV. For example, SMPTE 274M defines the 1920 x 1080 scanning format. SMPTE 292M defines the HD bit serial transport over coaxial and fiber optic cables. The list goes on.
DTV is highly standardized, and wickedly interoperable. You can take a camera from Sony and plug it into a deck from Panasonic and know, without a doubt, that one will record the output of the other without trouble. Likewise, you can buy a TV today with a built-in receiver and know that it'll be able to receive the 8VSB terrestrial signal from any DTV broadcaster in the FCC's jurisdiction.
Ok, how long ago did the digital TV specs get finalized?
Almost six years ago. The FCC adopted the ATSC standards in 1996.
How much bandwidth do they take up?
Six megahertz. Or, to put it another way, 19.4 megabits per second. By comparison, digital broadcast of SDTV requires about 4 Mbps.
How much more could we squeeze into that spectrum if they re-did it taking into account those fabulous new mpeg4 codecs that allow DVD quality data streams for only 150-200 KB/s.
Zero. I mean, we could talk about "could" all day, but there is no point. HDTV broadcasting is done in MPEG-2. Period.
Let's think about what it would take to change horses in mid-stream. First, you'd have to have inexpensive MPEG-4 decoding hardware available-- in vast quantities-- so consumer equipment manufacturers could build it into their TVs and set-top boxes. That's strike one.
Then you'd have to have high-quality real-time MPEG-4 encoding hardware for broadcasters and cable head-ends. That's even harder than building the decoders, so that's strike two.
Then you'd have to change the ATSC standards to include the MPEG-4 codec, which would introduce a problem of compatibility. There's zero compatibility between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4, so every program would have to be broadcast in both formats during a lengthy transition period. That would mean the FCC would have to re-reallocate the spectrum to give broadcasters a second full-bandwidth HDTV channel. Right now, during the transition, you get analog SD on, say, channel 8, and digital HD on channel 8.1 (which some TVs display as channel 9). To adopt MPEG-4, the broadcasters would have to get a third full-bandwidth channel, 8.2 or whatever, to broadcast MPEG-4 HD. That's unbelievably inconvenient, and that's strike three.
But let's assume that they decided to go ahead and do all of those things. What would we end up with?
We'd end up with a system that's no better than the one we have now. The idea that MPEG-4 can squeeze DVD-quality video into 3 Mbps is true, but the key word is squeeze. The PQ of low-medium-bit-rate MPEG-4 is still significantly worse than that of medium-bit-rate MPEG-2. In other words, the DVD at 3 Mbps MPEG-4 looks acceptable, to most people, but the DVD at 8 Mbps MPEG-2 looks a hell of a lot better. And, as far as I know, nobody has even tried testing MPEG-4 on broadcast HD material.
TV is a big, complex system with lots of moving parts. It's simply not possible to change something fundamental, like codec. But on the other hand, I get great picture quality-- smaller lines, actually, than my eye can resolve, given the distance from my couch to the set-- at reasonable cost, and I never get excluded from a piece of programming because I don't have HDTV codec version 3.3 on my TV.
So the phrase "free software" does mean what he intends it to mean, "unrestricted".
It can't, though. Because "free software" (i.e., GPL-licensed software) is not unrestricted. Quite the opposite.
Let's run through your definition candidates one by one.
3. Not controlled by an outside power; autonomous.
This is a terrible definition, but it clearly means "free as in having liberty of self-determination." The phrase "not controlled by an outside power" may confuse you until you get to the part where it says, "autonomous." The fridge in our office kitchen is not controlled by an outside power-- clearly, because nobody ever cleans the damn thing-- but it's not autonomous. So it's not appropriate, under this definition, to refer to it as a "free fridge." Same with software. If the source code to software is released and the copyright abandoned, then it's not controlled by an outside power. But it's not autonomous. So the phrase "free software" makes no sense by that definition. That one's out.
4. Not bound by restrictions or regulations: free trade.
I've already covered this one in part by saying that "free software" (i.e., GPL'd software) is just as restricted by licensing terms as any other software, and moreso than some. But there's another problem with this definition, too. In the phrase, "free trade," "trade" is a process, not an object. Same with "free speech." It's a process that is unrestricted by outside forces. It's understood, from that use of the word "free," that the object isn't actually "free" in any meaningful sense, but rather that the participants in the process are. When you say, "free trade exists between Canada and the United States," what you really mean is, "Canada and the United States are free of restrictions in trade."
But "software" isn't a process in Stallman's definition. It's an entity. So "free software," the phrase, has more in common with "free couch" than it does with "free trade."
If you stretch your mind a bit and think of "software" as the act of exchanging source code between individuals, then maybe there's a parallelism to "free trade" here. But we're back to the part about "not bound by restrictions." GPL-licensed software is just as bound by restrictions as any commercial software. So that definition of "free software" is clearly bogus.
9. Not controlled, restricted, or hampered by outside agents or influences.
I've done this one already. "Free software," i.e. GPL'd software, is restricted in its use. Those restrictions include a prohibition of releasing that software under a different software license, and a prohibition of linking that software into a larger software product without releasing the entire larger product under the GPL. They're serious, restrictive prohibitions. The word "free" can't apply there without the definition's being bent so far it's in danger of breaking.
12. Available to all; open: a free port.
Okay, this one is the closest yet to a definition I can accept. "Free software" is free in the sense that a "free port" is free: anybody can use it without paying a fee. I might be able to go along with that.
But this proves my very thesis: out of 15 definitions of "free," some of which weren't listed, only one could possibly be applied in the phrase "free software" without being blatantly incorrect. And the definition that applies is relatively obscure and differs in significant ways from the most common definition. And, furthermore, the definition that applies has more in common with the "zero cost" definition of "free" than with any other definition, which is exactly what Stallman says it doesn't mean.
The use of the phrase "free software" is counterintuitive and misleading. It's a rhetorical technique, called "transfer," to associate oneself with something that the audience accepts as inherently good. If you can get your audience to make that connection in their minds, they're far less likely to consider your argument critically.
By all accounts, the GPL is an unrestrictive license even if it doesn't allow you to relicense the work. Without the GPL, you wouldn't be able to copy the program, obtain source code, or distribute your own modifications.
Um... no. Without the GPL, the software would have no license at all, and would be in the public domain. I would be able to copy it, use its source code, change it, distribute it, do whatever I wanted with it. The GPL artificially restricts my freedom to use the software in the exact same way that any other software license does. The fact that it grants some rights-- which are all fine and dandy, by the way-- doesn't mean that it doesn't restrict others in a significant way.
1. CSS has nothing to do with whether or not you can skip ads. CSS is merely a form of encryption that prevents you from copying all or part of the DVD into another medium. You aren't allowed to copy the DVD, even under the pretense of "fair use."
2. Whether or not you can skip ads on a DVD depends on how that DVD was programmed. Segments can be programmed to disable the chapter skip features. This has nothing to do with DRM. It's a "feature" of the format that's unrelated to CSS.
3. Your example is weak. If you don't want kids in school to see ads, then don't show them DVDs. Teach them, instead. If you insist on showing them DVDs, do so in a properly licensed player, available for a few bucks in almost any store. If you want to skip the ads, then cue the DVD to the proper point, put it in "pause," and play it for the kids later.
4. It is-- unfortunately!-- not illegal in the US to advertise to kids. Do a google search for "Channel One" and you'll probably find some interesting-- and surprising-- information on this subject.
5. I think your definition of "fair use" is flawed. You have a DVD, and a widely available means of playing it. Once you have the DVD, you can play it at any time without having to get permission from the licensor. What fair use of that DVD is unavailable to you?
6. Finally, your point about merely enforcing existing laws is a good one, but that may not be enough. If the movie studios (for example) find that digital theft eats into too much of their profits, they may simply choose not to produce high-quality digital media. There may never be an HD-DVD product. As a home theater hobbyist, that would disappoint me very much. So I'm in favor of reasonable DRM. I find the DRM on DVDs to be entirely reasonable, except for the fact that some assholes had to break it and spoil everybody's fun. Make it stronger but basically functionally the same, and I'll be happy.
I guess I'm still not getting it. First you said (assuming "you" are the same person; since the comments all came from AC, it's impossible to be sure),
It's not just media rights (if it was, I'd agree with you). It's computer rights - and they're as important as computers themselves are.
Then, when I asked what rights were in jeopardy, you said,
The right to use a computer without being authorised is in jeopardy.
You cited the example of the UK web site as evidence. Now you say,
This is bad for the reasons I have already stated.
I don't see what any of this has to do with anybody's right to do anything. Way up-thread, you talked about "the right to use a computer without being authorized." I don't see what that has to do with a web application that is only compatible with one browser. That's about software design, not about individual rights. I don't know how they do things in the UK, exactly, but in the US, browser compatibility is not widely considered to be a civil right. Then again, we spell it "aluminum" instead of "aluminium," so who knows?
I'm sorry, but I guess I'm just not getting your argument. (Whether that's a single "you," or the plural, collective "you" that comprises the set of all ACs.)
You go to great lengths to attack Stallman's use of the word "free" and how software (as a non-entitity) can't be free in the way Stallman means it. What about free speech? Right or wrong, the "free" in Stallman's free software speaks about the rights of individuals the same way "free' in "free speech does.
Okay, let's get to the root of this, once and for all.
"Free speech," the phrase, is a shorthand. It's a shorthand for the relevant passage of the first amendment to the Constitution, which says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." (Parts unreleated to speech omitted.) This basically means, "The government can't-- within reason-- prevent you from expressing yourself." I said "within reason" because there are literally hundreds of areas in which expression has to be limited for reasons of safety, or security, or the overall good of society. This is considered appropriate and is accepted by all. That's freedom of speech, or "free speech."
How does that apply to "free software?" "Free" software, in RMS's definition, is software that is licensed under the GPL or a similar license. That license basically says that nobody is allowed to create derivative works based on the licensed software and release them under different licensing terms. That's it, in a nutshell. If the source work is GPL'd, the derivative works must be GPL'd.
How does that relate to freedom of speech? If anything, the GPL is the opposite of the idea behind freedom of speech, because it embodies a law (actually, a contract) that abridges the freedom of the user of the software. When you use GPL'd software, you are not free to do what you want with it. You're restricted, just like you are when you accept any licensing agreement. Again, there are lots of circumstances under which limiting freedom is appropriate, even necessary. There's nothing wrong with limited freedom, in and of itself. It's just that it can't be "free" and "not free" at the same time.
Calling GPL-licensed software "free," when it's meant in any sense other than "zero cost," is inaccurate, misleading, and (at worst) downright deceptive.
I take it from the rest of your comment that you agree with my assessment of RMS's language: it's emotional, instead of rational. It's evocative, rather than being insightful. And in his effort to make it visceral, he crosses the line into hyperbole and propaganda.
I am not sure what you are saying. Is freedom of speech and freedom to control your own possessions not a right?
You bet those are rights. Unfortunately, they are not in any way related to anything that we're talking about here.
Your comparison of RMS to Martin Luther King is insulting. Martin Luther King advocated equal protection under law for people of all races, and an end to state-sponsored injustice. RMS advocates open source software. These things are so far apart on both the moral and practical spectrums to make comparing them ludicrous.
The DRM issue is not a civil rights issue. Period. Your repeated reference to historical events unrelated to the present debate is nothing more than sheer hyperbole, and is therefore not worthy of further discussion.
Let's stick to the facts and compare RMS with the black activists like Mrs. Park who sat on the bus, or the 3 students in Greensboro, N.C., they demanded that they be served at the white dinner.
No, let's not. That's my whole thesis here. RMS's self-serving invocation of the black civil rights activists was inappropriate and in poor taste. The only reason he mentioned black civil rights activists was to cast his own actions in a more positive light. Suddenly he's not just being a disruptive and disrespectful ass. Suddenly he's frickin' Gandhi, for cryin' out loud.
Okay, you bring up good points. But I'm not sure that the "rights" (I'm not even sure that's the right word) of the buyer are self-evident. If you buy a material good, that object becomes yours, and you can do anything with it that you could do with any object of yours. That's intuitive and obvious. But when you "buy" a piece of software or media, you're actually buying certain rights to that media. Those rights determine what you can and can't do.
The way I see it, the seller is free to sell any combination of rights that he wants. A seller of media could say that the buyer is only entitled to watch the DVD on Tuesdays between two and six in months that end in "r." That would be a perfectly legal and valid license agreement.
There are those who believe that you should be able to do certain things with media irrespective of the rights you bought. These things are generally lumped together and called "fair use."
I don't have answers, only questions. I'm just not sure that "the rights of the buyer" are at all self-evident or clear. So I'm not sure that all the uproar over DRM makes sense. You don't have the right to use the media in certain ways anyway, because you didn't buy that right from the seller. A DRM technology merely enforces the restrictions that you, the buyer, have already accepted.
Because you are a COMPLETE fucking dumbass and think that somehow our discussions on slashdot have an impact on life. Get a clue... Anyways... I'm sure this isn't the only thing you read 'for the articles':-P
What seems to "bother" you is that Stallman has advanced persuasive arguments in favor of an idea that conflicts with your existing world view.
No, I told you exactly what bothers me: Stallman depends more on an appeal to emotion than he does on appeal to intellect. When other people do this, they're often trying to convince their audience to believe or to do something that they might not otherwise believe or do. That give me the creeps.
As I've written elsewhere, my disagreement with Stallman exists on a plane separate from my objections to his rhetoric. In other words, in my eyes he is not only Wrong, but also Bad.
In your post and in your essay, you spend a great deal of time attacking Stallman and his ideas as "propaganda," without rebutting those ideas. This is called an argumentum ad hominem attack ("against the man") and is considered a very poor argument--I'll resist the urge to call it "propaganda."
Propaganda is a very specific term for a set of rhetorical techniques. The word does have negative connotations, but I honestly can't think of a better one to describe what RMS does. The connotations aren't always negative, anyway. In the 20's, the word "agitprop" appeared, which is a combination of the Russian word agitatsiya (or "agitating") and propaganda. The word was used by Russian Communists to describe their own efforts. So your assertion that calling it propaganda is an ad hominem attack is pretty off base. If I wanted to make an ad hom attack against RMS, I'd call him a left-wing radical Communist who dresses funny. That's an ad hom attack.
For more information on propaganda techniques in persuasive writing, look here, or here, or here. These resources are good both for creating your own propaganda, and also for recognizing the propaganda of others. I'd suggest that you read about these techniques and familiarize yourself with them, then revisit RMS's writings. See how many instances of the propaganda techniques you can find. It's fun; it's like a little game.
I suggest you read Stallman's ideas again and give them some thought.
I read Stallman's ideas incessantly. But I read them critically and dispassionately, keeping a copy of those propaganda guides open beside me as I go. It's a terribly educational experience.
Thanks, Glen. I'm not sure, exactly, how the journal system on Slashdot works, but I think if you click the little round dot and sign up as a "friend" of mine, that you'll get messages when I post things to my journal. At least, I think that's how it works.
It's not just media rights (if it was, I'd agree with you). It's computer rights - and they're as important as computers themselves are.
Get specific. What are computer rights, exactly? Which ones are in jeopardy? And can you provide any sort of reasoning to back up your assertion that they're as important as computers are?
Slashdot Mirror
Exactly. Which has absolutely nothing to do with screen refresh rates.
You haven't the foggiest idea what Nyquist's theorem really means, do you?
As a matter of fact, I'm using OS X right now. When I'm wearing my "proposal writer" hat, I sit in front of it 8 or 10 hours a day. This week, it's "proposal writer" time.
The revolutionary thing about Aqua isn't that it's pretty-- as you pointed out. It's how incredibly simple it is. That's why I balk at the idea of an interactive 3D UI. It's not simple, and it won't be simple until our input devices change dramatically. The mouse is an acceptable input device for now because it's not too hard for the mind to associate moving left-right-up-down on the tabletop with moving left-right-up-down on the screen. That's not too bad. But learning to navigate a 3D interface with a mouse is hard. You either have to throw in a number of new mouse buttons that alter the axis of focus as you move the mouse-- which is just heaven for us RSI sufferers, let me tell you-- or you end up "driving" or "flying" through the UI. That's not simple. It sucks.
On the other hand, a true 3D UI might make sense in an immersive environment. (So how do you spell "immersive," anyway?) I remember reading years ago about a Media Lab project called "Put That There" that combined some voice recognition technology with some kind of body-tracking technology. The idea is that you could point at a thing on a wall-sized screen and say "Put that..." and point somewhere else and say, "there." The computer would read your voice and your gesture to figure out what you meant. I don't know how far they took this, but it's a neat idea. Eerily similar to the "look at me! look at me!" computers in Minority Report.
So until our whole idea of what a computer is and how we interact with it changes, I think 3D UIs are going to continue to be a terrible idea.
What journey? To a fully native OpenGL-based 3D windowing environment.
I guess I must have a problem with my browser, 'cause I don't seem to have gotten the part of your comment where you explain why in the hell someone would want such a thing.
Maybe you should try posting again.
You could hide it in a wall and have an IEEE-1394 to 10base-T adapter...
Is there such an animal, or are you just making that up?
I don't see how that could be possible. Either your TV, or the STB, or your cables are defective.
A green tinge across the top of the screen? Are you using RGB or YUV component video? (I'm not familiar with either Philips or Samsung consumer gear.)
Whenever a part of the picture has a color drift relative to the rest of the picture, I suspect the tube or the yoke. My first guess would be that you're looking at a TV problem. If the problem were in the STB, it would show up on a scope. See if you can find a repair service provider who will hook your STB up to a component scope and look at the output signals. That should help you determine that it's not the STB.
As for "compatibility" between the two, we've been using YUV component analog video for decades. The bugs are effectively worked out of that particular system. If you plug any source of analog component video into any display that accepts it and you don't get the right result, one of either the display or the source, or the cables, is broken.
The demo you're talking about did not involve putting IP inside MPEG-2. It involved using the 19.4 Mbps signal to transmit arbitrary data packets instead of MPEG-2 transport stream packets. ATSC has a standard that defines IP over 8VSB, I believe. Some public television stations in my state are using it to deliver data to schools via their DTV transmission towers.
But that's not the point. Nobody has an MPEG-4 (or Windows Media, or whatever) decoder in their TV or STB. That's why you can't use MPEG-4 to encode broadcast HDTV content. It's not nothing to do with whether you can or can't put arbitrary data out through the DTV transmitter.
HA! you're joking right. A 20" veiewable area monitor (which can only do 1600x1200, not full 1080i) costs like 400+ more like 800+ for a good one. Plus about $100 for the videocard+part of computer. A TV that size costs like $100 or less.
That's completely wrong. Look really closely at your computer monitor. I mean, really, really closely. Get a magnifying glass if you have to. See all the little spots? Now compare that to an average TV. The TV can resolve, maybe, 300 or 400 lines of resolution, while the monitor can hold 1,200 or more. A $500 computer monitor can resolve a point about four times smaller than a $500 TV. The tubes in computer monitors are significantly more expensive to make, which is why you don't see 34" computer monitors for sale down at the CompUSA. So, size for size, an analog TV is a lot cheaper to the consumer than a computer monitor.
But if you normalize for that-- say, comparing a multisync computer monitor at 20" to a non-multisync one of the same size and basic feature set-- you find that the price difference is insignificant. Can you even buy non-multisync computer monitors any more?
So making a TV that can display all 18 HDTV formats (except for 1080/60p, which is just too dang much bandwidth) is only marginally more expensive than making one that can only show one of them.
The really cheap sets get around even that marginal cost by, as I said, converting every format internally to 1080/60i, so the tube itself and the associated electronics only have to display one format. But the TV itself is compatible with them all.
You do realize that displaying 24fps on a 60Hz display is a pain. DVD players do this, but with lots of hints from the stream, doing it with no hints is a pain. And I won't even touch trying to display an interlaced signal on a non-interlaced display and vice versa (think visible artifacts in motion)
And you do realize that the 59.94 Hz / 24 Hz problem was solved long ago. The right way to convert from 24 Hz to 59.94 Hz is to add 3:2 pulldown. Some people object to the 3:2, so you've got your re-interleaving algorithms that show 24 fps material in 59.94 fps progressive scan by slightly lengthening some frames.
A quality display device will show 24 fps progressive-scan material at 72 Hz, which eliminates the "judder" effect (something between a jitter and a stutter), but these devices aren't that common in the consumer world.
You're overstating things. It's not accurate to say that "digital sucks." It's pretty accurate to say that low-bit-rate, poorly compressed digital cable TV sucks.
For about a week, I subscribed to AT&T Broadband digital cable. I like rugby and Aussie rules football, and AT&T carried Fox Sports International as part of their basic channel line-up. So I signed up.
AT&T compresses Fox Sports International so much that you can see artifacts in the on-screen graphics. You have to turn that knob all the way to the left before you're compressing enough to see artifacts in non-moving parts of the picture.
So I fired AT&T and bought a DirecTV receiver. I pay $12 a month more, but I get the same channel, also delivered digitally, with much higher PQ. No more artifacts in the non-moving parts of the picture, and much less compression artifacting when the camera swish-pans or something.
Then there's HDTV. HDTV is digital, and it's compressed. It's compressed a lot, too, from over 1 Gbps down to 19.4 Mbps. That's about 50:1. But the picture is almost always crystal-clear, significantly better than DVD. It takes a lot to cause visible artifacting. One time I was watching a college football game in HD, and they cut to a shot of the kids in the stands waving their pom-poms. There was so much movement in the scene that, for a second, it broke up into total digital artifacting. But I only saw it because I was looking for it, and it was only on-screen for about ten frames.
Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Digital is a powerful force that can be used either for good or for evil. Broadcasting digital HDTV is good. Broadcasting pay-per-view programs at a megabit per second is evil.
Besides, dude, what the hell are you thinking trying to watch NTSC on a 40" TV?? The human eye can resolve about a point about six arc-seconds across. Given that NTSC only broadcasts 480 visible lines, you'd have to be, like, fifteen or twenty feet away from your 40" TV before you started seeing a decent picture. Any closer, and you're just looking at pixels.
How did you get moderated to 5? The problem of analog-only TVs has been around since we first started talking about converting to digital TV back in the late 80's. And the answer now is the same as it was then: market demand will lead to the widespread availability of inexpensive set-top boxes that take DTV in via OTA, satellite, cable, whatever, and down-convert it to analog composite or baseband TV for use with ancient sets.
This just isn't a problem, man.
Your inappropriate use of profanity aside, you're wrong.
Consumer Electronics dudes whine "18 formats make every thing cost more, you are fucking us!"
The much-talked-about 18 ATSC formats are as follows:
1080 x 1920, 30i (meaning 1920 by 1080 pixels, 30 fps interlaced)
1080 x 1920, 30p
1080 x 1920, 24p
1280 x 720, 60p
1280 x 720, 30p
1280 x 720, 24p
480 x 704, 60p
480 x 704, 30i
480 x 704, 30p
480 x 704, 24p
480 x 704, 60p, anamorphic
480 x 704, 30i, anamorphic
480 x 704, 30p, anamorphic
480 x 704, 24p, anamorphic
480 x 640, 60p
480 x 640, 30i
480 x 640, 30p
480 x 640, 24p
So when people say "18 formats," they really mean a combinatorial of four resolutions, three or four frame rates, and one set of anamorphic modes. It's not that complicated.
Consider that fancy graphics card and multi-sync monitor on your desk. It can display 1280 x 1024 at 60 Hz, or at 72 Hz, or at 75 Hz, or at 85 Hz. Did it cost you a fortune? Not relatively, no. Same with HDTV. The formats do not any significant cost to the sets. Particularly considering most consumer sets out there only have one sync rate-- 60 Hz-- and one resolution-- 1080 x 1920. They convert all other formats internally to that display format.
FCC says "OK, it's your call on standards, 18 formats is fine, infact there are NO STANDARDS AT ALL, 'cause we are letting the 'market decide', but you start broadcasting HDTV now or we take back the FREE bandwidth."
There are several very important standards for digital TV broadcasting. Your assertion that there are "no standards at all" is just wrong. In particular, two standards define how digital TV works.
ATSC A/52 defines the Dolby AC-3 audio compression and encoding scheme. This is also known as "Dolby Digital." ATSC A/53 defines stuff like scanning formats, encoder functions, and the 8VSB transmission system.
In addition, there are lots of SMPTE standards that define various interfaces and formats related to DTV. For example, SMPTE 274M defines the 1920 x 1080 scanning format. SMPTE 292M defines the HD bit serial transport over coaxial and fiber optic cables. The list goes on.
DTV is highly standardized, and wickedly interoperable. You can take a camera from Sony and plug it into a deck from Panasonic and know, without a doubt, that one will record the output of the other without trouble. Likewise, you can buy a TV today with a built-in receiver and know that it'll be able to receive the 8VSB terrestrial signal from any DTV broadcaster in the FCC's jurisdiction.
So you're wrong about that, too.
Ok, how long ago did the digital TV specs get finalized?
Almost six years ago. The FCC adopted the ATSC standards in 1996.
How much bandwidth do they take up?
Six megahertz. Or, to put it another way, 19.4 megabits per second. By comparison, digital broadcast of SDTV requires about 4 Mbps.
How much more could we squeeze into that spectrum if they re-did it taking into account those fabulous new mpeg4 codecs that allow DVD quality data streams for only 150-200 KB/s.
Zero. I mean, we could talk about "could" all day, but there is no point. HDTV broadcasting is done in MPEG-2. Period.
Let's think about what it would take to change horses in mid-stream. First, you'd have to have inexpensive MPEG-4 decoding hardware available-- in vast quantities-- so consumer equipment manufacturers could build it into their TVs and set-top boxes. That's strike one.
Then you'd have to have high-quality real-time MPEG-4 encoding hardware for broadcasters and cable head-ends. That's even harder than building the decoders, so that's strike two.
Then you'd have to change the ATSC standards to include the MPEG-4 codec, which would introduce a problem of compatibility. There's zero compatibility between MPEG-2 and MPEG-4, so every program would have to be broadcast in both formats during a lengthy transition period. That would mean the FCC would have to re-reallocate the spectrum to give broadcasters a second full-bandwidth HDTV channel. Right now, during the transition, you get analog SD on, say, channel 8, and digital HD on channel 8.1 (which some TVs display as channel 9). To adopt MPEG-4, the broadcasters would have to get a third full-bandwidth channel, 8.2 or whatever, to broadcast MPEG-4 HD. That's unbelievably inconvenient, and that's strike three.
But let's assume that they decided to go ahead and do all of those things. What would we end up with?
We'd end up with a system that's no better than the one we have now. The idea that MPEG-4 can squeeze DVD-quality video into 3 Mbps is true, but the key word is squeeze. The PQ of low-medium-bit-rate MPEG-4 is still significantly worse than that of medium-bit-rate MPEG-2. In other words, the DVD at 3 Mbps MPEG-4 looks acceptable, to most people, but the DVD at 8 Mbps MPEG-2 looks a hell of a lot better. And, as far as I know, nobody has even tried testing MPEG-4 on broadcast HD material.
TV is a big, complex system with lots of moving parts. It's simply not possible to change something fundamental, like codec. But on the other hand, I get great picture quality-- smaller lines, actually, than my eye can resolve, given the distance from my couch to the set-- at reasonable cost, and I never get excluded from a piece of programming because I don't have HDTV codec version 3.3 on my TV.
So the phrase "free software" does mean what he intends it to mean, "unrestricted".
It can't, though. Because "free software" (i.e., GPL-licensed software) is not unrestricted. Quite the opposite.
Let's run through your definition candidates one by one.
3. Not controlled by an outside power; autonomous.
This is a terrible definition, but it clearly means "free as in having liberty of self-determination." The phrase "not controlled by an outside power" may confuse you until you get to the part where it says, "autonomous." The fridge in our office kitchen is not controlled by an outside power-- clearly, because nobody ever cleans the damn thing-- but it's not autonomous. So it's not appropriate, under this definition, to refer to it as a "free fridge." Same with software. If the source code to software is released and the copyright abandoned, then it's not controlled by an outside power. But it's not autonomous. So the phrase "free software" makes no sense by that definition. That one's out.
4. Not bound by restrictions or regulations: free trade.
I've already covered this one in part by saying that "free software" (i.e., GPL'd software) is just as restricted by licensing terms as any other software, and moreso than some. But there's another problem with this definition, too. In the phrase, "free trade," "trade" is a process, not an object. Same with "free speech." It's a process that is unrestricted by outside forces. It's understood, from that use of the word "free," that the object isn't actually "free" in any meaningful sense, but rather that the participants in the process are. When you say, "free trade exists between Canada and the United States," what you really mean is, "Canada and the United States are free of restrictions in trade."
But "software" isn't a process in Stallman's definition. It's an entity. So "free software," the phrase, has more in common with "free couch" than it does with "free trade."
If you stretch your mind a bit and think of "software" as the act of exchanging source code between individuals, then maybe there's a parallelism to "free trade" here. But we're back to the part about "not bound by restrictions." GPL-licensed software is just as bound by restrictions as any commercial software. So that definition of "free software" is clearly bogus.
9. Not controlled, restricted, or hampered by outside agents or influences.
I've done this one already. "Free software," i.e. GPL'd software, is restricted in its use. Those restrictions include a prohibition of releasing that software under a different software license, and a prohibition of linking that software into a larger software product without releasing the entire larger product under the GPL. They're serious, restrictive prohibitions. The word "free" can't apply there without the definition's being bent so far it's in danger of breaking.
12. Available to all; open: a free port.
Okay, this one is the closest yet to a definition I can accept. "Free software" is free in the sense that a "free port" is free: anybody can use it without paying a fee. I might be able to go along with that.
But this proves my very thesis: out of 15 definitions of "free," some of which weren't listed, only one could possibly be applied in the phrase "free software" without being blatantly incorrect. And the definition that applies is relatively obscure and differs in significant ways from the most common definition. And, furthermore, the definition that applies has more in common with the "zero cost" definition of "free" than with any other definition, which is exactly what Stallman says it doesn't mean.
The use of the phrase "free software" is counterintuitive and misleading. It's a rhetorical technique, called "transfer," to associate oneself with something that the audience accepts as inherently good. If you can get your audience to make that connection in their minds, they're far less likely to consider your argument critically.
By all accounts, the GPL is an unrestrictive license even if it doesn't allow you to relicense the work. Without the GPL, you wouldn't be able to copy the program, obtain source code, or distribute your own modifications.
Um... no. Without the GPL, the software would have no license at all, and would be in the public domain. I would be able to copy it, use its source code, change it, distribute it, do whatever I wanted with it. The GPL artificially restricts my freedom to use the software in the exact same way that any other software license does. The fact that it grants some rights-- which are all fine and dandy, by the way-- doesn't mean that it doesn't restrict others in a significant way.
1. CSS has nothing to do with whether or not you can skip ads. CSS is merely a form of encryption that prevents you from copying all or part of the DVD into another medium. You aren't allowed to copy the DVD, even under the pretense of "fair use."
2. Whether or not you can skip ads on a DVD depends on how that DVD was programmed. Segments can be programmed to disable the chapter skip features. This has nothing to do with DRM. It's a "feature" of the format that's unrelated to CSS.
3. Your example is weak. If you don't want kids in school to see ads, then don't show them DVDs. Teach them, instead. If you insist on showing them DVDs, do so in a properly licensed player, available for a few bucks in almost any store. If you want to skip the ads, then cue the DVD to the proper point, put it in "pause," and play it for the kids later.
4. It is-- unfortunately!-- not illegal in the US to advertise to kids. Do a google search for "Channel One" and you'll probably find some interesting-- and surprising-- information on this subject.
5. I think your definition of "fair use" is flawed. You have a DVD, and a widely available means of playing it. Once you have the DVD, you can play it at any time without having to get permission from the licensor. What fair use of that DVD is unavailable to you?
6. Finally, your point about merely enforcing existing laws is a good one, but that may not be enough. If the movie studios (for example) find that digital theft eats into too much of their profits, they may simply choose not to produce high-quality digital media. There may never be an HD-DVD product. As a home theater hobbyist, that would disappoint me very much. So I'm in favor of reasonable DRM. I find the DRM on DVDs to be entirely reasonable, except for the fact that some assholes had to break it and spoil everybody's fun. Make it stronger but basically functionally the same, and I'll be happy.
I guess I'm still not getting it. First you said (assuming "you" are the same person; since the comments all came from AC, it's impossible to be sure),
It's not just media rights (if it was, I'd agree with you). It's computer rights - and they're as important as computers themselves are.
Then, when I asked what rights were in jeopardy, you said,
The right to use a computer without being authorised is in jeopardy.
You cited the example of the UK web site as evidence. Now you say,
This is bad for the reasons I have already stated.
I don't see what any of this has to do with anybody's right to do anything. Way up-thread, you talked about "the right to use a computer without being authorized." I don't see what that has to do with a web application that is only compatible with one browser. That's about software design, not about individual rights. I don't know how they do things in the UK, exactly, but in the US, browser compatibility is not widely considered to be a civil right. Then again, we spell it "aluminum" instead of "aluminium," so who knows?
I'm sorry, but I guess I'm just not getting your argument. (Whether that's a single "you," or the plural, collective "you" that comprises the set of all ACs.)
You go to great lengths to attack Stallman's use of the word "free" and how software (as a non-entitity) can't be free in the way Stallman means it. What about free speech? Right or wrong, the "free" in Stallman's free software speaks about the rights of individuals the same way "free' in "free speech does.
Okay, let's get to the root of this, once and for all.
"Free speech," the phrase, is a shorthand. It's a shorthand for the relevant passage of the first amendment to the Constitution, which says, "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech." (Parts unreleated to speech omitted.) This basically means, "The government can't-- within reason-- prevent you from expressing yourself." I said "within reason" because there are literally hundreds of areas in which expression has to be limited for reasons of safety, or security, or the overall good of society. This is considered appropriate and is accepted by all. That's freedom of speech, or "free speech."
How does that apply to "free software?" "Free" software, in RMS's definition, is software that is licensed under the GPL or a similar license. That license basically says that nobody is allowed to create derivative works based on the licensed software and release them under different licensing terms. That's it, in a nutshell. If the source work is GPL'd, the derivative works must be GPL'd.
How does that relate to freedom of speech? If anything, the GPL is the opposite of the idea behind freedom of speech, because it embodies a law (actually, a contract) that abridges the freedom of the user of the software. When you use GPL'd software, you are not free to do what you want with it. You're restricted, just like you are when you accept any licensing agreement. Again, there are lots of circumstances under which limiting freedom is appropriate, even necessary. There's nothing wrong with limited freedom, in and of itself. It's just that it can't be "free" and "not free" at the same time.
Calling GPL-licensed software "free," when it's meant in any sense other than "zero cost," is inaccurate, misleading, and (at worst) downright deceptive.
I take it from the rest of your comment that you agree with my assessment of RMS's language: it's emotional, instead of rational. It's evocative, rather than being insightful. And in his effort to make it visceral, he crosses the line into hyperbole and propaganda.
I am not sure what you are saying. Is freedom of speech and freedom to control your own possessions not a right?
You bet those are rights. Unfortunately, they are not in any way related to anything that we're talking about here.
Your comparison of RMS to Martin Luther King is insulting. Martin Luther King advocated equal protection under law for people of all races, and an end to state-sponsored injustice. RMS advocates open source software. These things are so far apart on both the moral and practical spectrums to make comparing them ludicrous.
The DRM issue is not a civil rights issue. Period. Your repeated reference to historical events unrelated to the present debate is nothing more than sheer hyperbole, and is therefore not worthy of further discussion.
Let's stick to the facts and compare RMS with the black activists like Mrs. Park who sat on the bus, or the 3 students in Greensboro, N.C., they demanded that they be served at the white dinner.
No, let's not. That's my whole thesis here. RMS's self-serving invocation of the black civil rights activists was inappropriate and in poor taste. The only reason he mentioned black civil rights activists was to cast his own actions in a more positive light. Suddenly he's not just being a disruptive and disrespectful ass. Suddenly he's frickin' Gandhi, for cryin' out loud.
I have a problem with this.
Okay, you bring up good points. But I'm not sure that the "rights" (I'm not even sure that's the right word) of the buyer are self-evident. If you buy a material good, that object becomes yours, and you can do anything with it that you could do with any object of yours. That's intuitive and obvious. But when you "buy" a piece of software or media, you're actually buying certain rights to that media. Those rights determine what you can and can't do.
The way I see it, the seller is free to sell any combination of rights that he wants. A seller of media could say that the buyer is only entitled to watch the DVD on Tuesdays between two and six in months that end in "r." That would be a perfectly legal and valid license agreement.
There are those who believe that you should be able to do certain things with media irrespective of the rights you bought. These things are generally lumped together and called "fair use."
I don't have answers, only questions. I'm just not sure that "the rights of the buyer" are at all self-evident or clear. So I'm not sure that all the uproar over DRM makes sense. You don't have the right to use the media in certain ways anyway, because you didn't buy that right from the seller. A DRM technology merely enforces the restrictions that you, the buyer, have already accepted.
Did you copy the wrong link? That article is about a web application that only works with IE. What does that have to do with anything?
Geez, dude. I don't know what time zone you're in, but you really need to switch to decaf. It's starting to adversely affect your sense of humor.
Because you are a COMPLETE fucking dumbass and think that somehow our discussions on slashdot have an impact on life. Get a clue... Anyways... I'm sure this isn't the only thing you read 'for the articles' :-P
Forget to check that "post anonymously" box, huh?
What seems to "bother" you is that Stallman has advanced persuasive arguments in favor of an idea that conflicts with your existing world view.
No, I told you exactly what bothers me: Stallman depends more on an appeal to emotion than he does on appeal to intellect. When other people do this, they're often trying to convince their audience to believe or to do something that they might not otherwise believe or do. That give me the creeps.
As I've written elsewhere, my disagreement with Stallman exists on a plane separate from my objections to his rhetoric. In other words, in my eyes he is not only Wrong, but also Bad.
In your post and in your essay, you spend a great deal of time attacking Stallman and his ideas as "propaganda," without rebutting those ideas. This is called an argumentum ad hominem attack ("against the man") and is considered a very poor argument--I'll resist the urge to call it "propaganda."
Propaganda is a very specific term for a set of rhetorical techniques. The word does have negative connotations, but I honestly can't think of a better one to describe what RMS does. The connotations aren't always negative, anyway. In the 20's, the word "agitprop" appeared, which is a combination of the Russian word agitatsiya (or "agitating") and propaganda. The word was used by Russian Communists to describe their own efforts. So your assertion that calling it propaganda is an ad hominem attack is pretty off base. If I wanted to make an ad hom attack against RMS, I'd call him a left-wing radical Communist who dresses funny. That's an ad hom attack.
For more information on propaganda techniques in persuasive writing, look here, or here, or here. These resources are good both for creating your own propaganda, and also for recognizing the propaganda of others. I'd suggest that you read about these techniques and familiarize yourself with them, then revisit RMS's writings. See how many instances of the propaganda techniques you can find. It's fun; it's like a little game.
I suggest you read Stallman's ideas again and give them some thought.
I read Stallman's ideas incessantly. But I read them critically and dispassionately, keeping a copy of those propaganda guides open beside me as I go. It's a terribly educational experience.
Thanks, Glen. I'm not sure, exactly, how the journal system on Slashdot works, but I think if you click the little round dot and sign up as a "friend" of mine, that you'll get messages when I post things to my journal. At least, I think that's how it works.
;-)
Or you can just go here. I think. Maybe.
PS: I'm going to be in Sydney soon on a business trip. How's the weather down there?
It's not just media rights (if it was, I'd agree with you). It's computer rights - and they're as important as computers themselves are.
Get specific. What are computer rights, exactly? Which ones are in jeopardy? And can you provide any sort of reasoning to back up your assertion that they're as important as computers are?