is guarantueed as long as legislation does not forbid it, by simple supply and demand. It might be expensive, but always there.
The implications of legislation to forbid it would be so humongous that I dont foresee the multinationals to try and force that through for a couple of decades. If nothing drastic happens in the meantime though I could see it happen in that timeframe, unfortunately.
Its always possible to build a perceptually transparant codec at a lower bitrate as the original, hell if you just use lossless coding you can get it down.
But you can get a lot lower, Im sure that you could make a codec which with DVD-A as a source could give better quality as CD-Audio at a lower bitrate as CD-Audio (for the people who can hear the difference between the two in the first place).
Unless m$ removes raw paths to audio/video output entirely we can just use the "open" stuff we have today or which we develop ourselfes, and I dont see them closing those down just yet (would make game development fun, for all extents and purposes for all applications which needed to output self composed audio and video development would have to be done just like on consoles... with NDA'd development kits and the likes).
Even then the only way to truly prevent privacy would be to have robust watermarks and build watermark detection directly into every audio and video path, that would be the only way to enforce it so even people who dont use m$ shit could avoid it.
Some parts of the industry might want to push us there... but unless audio/video reproduction devices without "copyright protection" become illegal its not going to happen IMO.
MACH single handedly gave microkernels a bad name
on
Bringing xMach To Life
·
· Score: 1
Basically its a dog, its a pity it had to be the most famous.
Its a shame something like L4 doesnt get more publicity. Or Eros for that matter, although that wont ever be suited as just a lite weight server to build a *nix on.
Until they do finite element simulations down to a much finer level as they have done up till now how can anyone say with total confidence that hot spot's intense enough to cause physical effects do not form? (for instance in regions the size of a cell, or the size of a gene...) SAR is nice and all, but what I care about is the distribution of the energy inside the brain not the amount.
AFAICS either linking against unmodified GPL code can be done with any license, or it can only be linked against other GPL code (or code which can be relicensed under an arbitrary license, BSD for instance, but that hardly counts as a real license IMO). I dont see a middle way. If they want to release the code under a license which allows relicensing they might as well license it directly under the GPL themselves, thats NOT a reasonable way of making the QPL compatible.
Of course the GPL seems to only strictly define derived works where GPL'd code IS modified "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program"... so a layman as me can make the argument you can link anything against an unmodified GPL library because linking is not a form of modification in my book.
Is said to have hardware type support... of course I should probably say "hardware", not too many people believe it will ever see the light of day.
X GUI's are nice if you dont use the mouse...
on
X Windows Must Die!
·
· Score: 1
Thats not what GUI standards are about, they are about what you find in which dialog and what your mouse button's behave like in general etc etc.
If I want to use mouse button's in X programs I always have to play the "what does the button do this time" game. Hell I have used programs which arent even internally consistent in how they use the mouse buttons.
Intel already has some kind of PROM in their chip for the microcode/ID stuff and AMD could put something simular in too, in fact they only need some fuses which they can very very easily incorperate.
Test/rate the chip and program speed in PROM and blow fuse to make reprogramming physically impossible, or just use a set of fuses and blow the right ones to encode the speed if you dont want to use EEPROM or some such.
People who actually do something with patented technology always have a reason to innovate. It always pay's off to be first. For a lot of fields trade secrets could easily replace patents again without slowing down innovation IMO.
If you want good battery life forget about x86
on
IBM Wary of Crusoe?
·
· Score: 1
And if you just want to run Linux theres no need for x86 in the first place. Strongarm and SuperH chips already provide far more computing power per Watt as is, and once the new Strongarm and SH5 to put them on equal footing with Transmeta process wise the difference will be ridiculous.
If power consumption AND x86 are issues then by all means. But if you remove the x86 requirement you'd be mad to pick Transmeta.
So Transmeta only makes sense when its runding windows software, nice twist for what once was the ultimate Linux zealots wet dream.
Until they put a personalized decryption chip inside my head (which they no doubt will try if we let them) encryption has to stop somewhere, the fartest they can encrypt is down to the DAC. But we can always redigitize, its all futile.
Then nearly anything can be compatible with GPL. Either you concede the point that 2. doesnt apply for dynamic linking or everything has to be licensed under GPL. There is no middle road.
The GPL seems to clearly define what it takes to make a derived work: "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program"
Dynamic linking to an unchanged library would not seem to be a derived work then, it clearly specifies modification. What am I missing?
Slashdot Mirror
is guarantueed as long as legislation does not forbid it, by simple supply and demand. It might be expensive, but always there.
The implications of legislation to forbid it would be so humongous that I dont foresee the multinationals to try and force that through for a couple of decades. If nothing drastic happens in the meantime though I could see it happen in that timeframe, unfortunately.
Its always possible to build a perceptually transparant codec at a lower bitrate as the original, hell if you just use lossless coding you can get it down.
But you can get a lot lower, Im sure that you could make a codec which with DVD-A as a source could give better quality as CD-Audio at a lower bitrate as CD-Audio (for the people who can hear the difference between the two in the first place).
Unless m$ removes raw paths to audio/video output entirely we can just use the "open" stuff we have today or which we develop ourselfes, and I dont see them closing those down just yet (would make game development fun, for all extents and purposes for all applications which needed to output self composed audio and video development would have to be done just like on consoles... with NDA'd development kits and the likes).
Even then the only way to truly prevent privacy would be to have robust watermarks and build watermark detection directly into every audio and video path, that would be the only way to enforce it so even people who dont use m$ shit could avoid it.
Some parts of the industry might want to push us there... but unless audio/video reproduction devices without "copyright protection" become illegal its not going to happen IMO.
Basically its a dog, its a pity it had to be the most famous.
Its a shame something like L4 doesnt get more publicity. Or Eros for that matter, although that wont ever be suited as just a lite weight server to build a *nix on.
Nuff Said.
Until they do finite element simulations down to a much finer level as they have done up till now how can anyone say with total confidence that hot spot's intense enough to cause physical effects do not form? (for instance in regions the size of a cell, or the size of a gene...) SAR is nice and all, but what I care about is the distribution of the energy inside the brain not the amount.
Are there any tissue's in the head which could potentially focus some of that energy?
AFAICS either linking against unmodified GPL code can be done with any license, or it can only be linked against other GPL code (or code which can be relicensed under an arbitrary license, BSD for instance, but that hardly counts as a real license IMO). I dont see a middle way. If they want to release the code under a license which allows relicensing they might as well license it directly under the GPL themselves, thats NOT a reasonable way of making the QPL compatible.
Of course the GPL seems to only strictly define derived works where GPL'd code IS modified "You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program"... so a layman as me can make the argument you can link anything against an unmodified GPL library because linking is not a form of modification in my book.
Is said to have hardware type support... of course I should probably say "hardware", not too many people believe it will ever see the light of day.
Thats not what GUI standards are about, they are about what you find in which dialog and what your mouse button's behave like in general etc etc.
If I want to use mouse button's in X programs I always have to play the "what does the button do this time" game. Hell I have used programs which arent even internally consistent in how they use the mouse buttons.
Intel already has some kind of PROM in their chip for the microcode/ID stuff and AMD could put something simular in too, in fact they only need some fuses which they can very very easily incorperate.
Test/rate the chip and program speed in PROM and blow fuse to make reprogramming physically impossible, or just use a set of fuses and blow the right ones to encode the speed if you dont want to use EEPROM or some such.
People who actually do something with patented technology always have a reason to innovate. It always pay's off to be first. For a lot of fields trade secrets could easily replace patents again without slowing down innovation IMO.
Nuff Said.
they would stay illiterate.
And if you just want to run Linux theres no need for x86 in the first place. Strongarm and SuperH chips already provide far more computing power per Watt as is, and once the new Strongarm and SH5 to put them on equal footing with Transmeta process wise the difference will be ridiculous.
If power consumption AND x86 are issues then by all means. But if you remove the x86 requirement you'd be mad to pick Transmeta.
So Transmeta only makes sense when its runding windows software, nice twist for what once was the ultimate Linux zealots wet dream.
Until they put a personalized decryption chip inside my head (which they no doubt will try if we let them) encryption has to stop somewhere, the fartest they can encrypt is down to the DAC. But we can always redigitize, its all futile.
Then nearly anything can be compatible with GPL. Either you concede the point that 2. doesnt apply for dynamic linking or everything has to be licensed under GPL. There is no middle road.
The GPL seems to clearly define what it takes to make a derived work:
"You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program"
Dynamic linking to an unchanged library would not seem to be a derived work then, it clearly specifies modification. What am I missing?