As another poster hinted at, the RGB color model cannot encode every color the eye can see. It can encode every color today's monitors can display, or at least that's why it exists. However, when the output is something with higher color resolution or more importantly higher dynamic range such as film, more complete color models are needed, typically based on CIE XYZ. Furthermore, RGB is not a perceptual encoding; that is, it wastes bits in areas humans aren't likely to notice. Greg Ward's LogLuv format, for example, uses the L*u*v* color model (CIE XYZ based) to conserve bits and in 24bit mode encodes three orders of magnitude of dynamic range beyond RGB and just barely the smallest color difference the eye can detect. (LogLuv is typically used in 32 bit mode however, where it has more than 40 orders of magnitude of dynamic range beyond RGB's and finer colors). See Greg Ward's High Dynamic Range Image Encodings.
So, 24 bit color is as good as the eye can see on a computer monitor. Any image processing will require more bits to reduce rounding error artifacts, and any superior display will require better encodings to represent more colors and higher dynamic range.
Netgate and ThinkWiki are your friends. Yes, being a bitter Linux user isn't easy. I personally have not given up yet, having both a Radeon 9200 SE and a wifi card from Netgate. But it seems like things will never change, and it isn't very encouraging to see even the general slashdot vibe to be "pragmatism is god; clinging to some idealistic impossibility isn't pragmatic". Of course, to be pragmatic one must have a goal, and the goal is rarely stated or assumed to be "getting things done today" when it may very well be "advancing my personal view of what society should be" or "improving things". Will the next Linux be chicken-and-egged to death because no vendors will provide drivers because it isn't popular enough? I don't want to see the hobbyist OS die not from lack of effort but from lack of drivers. Linux is popular enough to get vendor written drivers in some areas where the spec is not available, but is left high and dry in other areas such as many webcams, scanners, and other consumer level devices.
It sounds to me like you are just arguing semantics... But I have a serious
question. Start with a 100x100 pixel source (digital) (assume the same color
space as JPEG uses, YUV 4:2:0 or whatever it may be). Reduce the file size 4:1
by two methods: in the first, scale the image to 50x50; in the second, compress
using JPEG or some other lossy compression. Is it incorrect to view the first
method as a naive lossy compression? I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that
JPEG is a non-naive lossy compression in that it attempts to discard data that
won't be noticed. Now, given that the end user intends to view the image at
50x50, which method will result in a better picture? My first thought is that
the 100x100 JPEG compressed image would, when scaled to 50x50, easily surpass
the 50x50 image created by a simple scaling algorithm... Will this change if
the user views at 100x100? Will this change if it's video instead of a still
image?
What I really want to know is this: when preparing a video for online
distribution, it is common to offer small, medium, and large files. For the
small file, is it better to apply more lossy compression, or is it better to
first scale down the video? Of course, if one opts for the
more-lossy-compression route, the playback software will attempt to display the
video at the full size when it may look better at a smaller size due to the
lossiness...
Thanks for that link. I've seen the Shelky quote in a sig but never saw the
context and wondered if was just a troll. The linked page focuses a lot on the
Blizzard terms of service which I would think is very different from any
software program that just runs on the user's computer and does not need to log
on to Blizzard's servers (i.e. most software). It seems obvious that Blizzard
can cancel the service (and cancel your bill) under any terms you agree to
since the service involves Blizzard actually providing a service. With
"normal" software, no service is provided; once the purchase is made the user
needs nothing more to use the software. The only other case mentioned is the
ProCD case which I am unfamiliar with but apparently involved someone copying a
(not copyrightable) phone book from a CD of some phone book software (in
violation of the EULA) and then making competing phone book software. If my
assumptions are correct, that would not seem to bode well for the "EULA is not
a valid contract" argument.
So, anyone have any more links or info on this subject? It just seems wrong
to sell software in a box, much like a book, and then spring a EULA onto the
user after he's gone to the trouble to buy and begin installing the damned
thing. And what of the user modifying the EULA before clicking agree (even
mailing the changes to the company)? This is possible with a large amount of
software. I've also heard it's possible to do automated installation where the
EULA is never even presented. Will the court simply assume that a EULA is to be
expected these days and therefore it's up to the user to find it?
Here here. I saw this on slashdot some time ago... but has anyone tried
paying for software in cash wrapped in a EULA that might, for example, nullify
any EULA contained within the software box? I know your average store clerk
couldn't care less... but it would be satisfying just the same. If witnessed,
could such an act carry any weight in court in the event of a suit by the
software publisher against you for violating the EULA? It certainly couldn't
carry any less weight than the EULA?
I hate EULAs that look like a retail sale, and I hate non-CDs sold as if
they were CDs. What happened to integrity?
Now that I think about it, the divisions into "com", "net", "org" help avoid
collisions, but do so in a most useless manner. Say for example, that McDonalds
is a purveyor of fine foods, and registers mcdonalds.com. Now, Old McDonald had
a farm but now sells farm equipment and would like to register mcdonalds.com.
Trademark law allows McDonald's Fast Food and McDonald's Farm Equipment to
coexist, but it is unfair to allow one to register the domain but not the
other. One soultion would be to deny mcdonalds.com from everyone, requiring
mcdonalds-fast-food and mcdonalds-farm-equipment, but in a brand driven society
this would probably fail for brands spanning a wide range of products.
I propose completely arbitrary TLDs to avoid collisions as an admission of
the futility of attempting to classify domains with TLDs while keeping some
collision avoidance. The new TLDs might be colors for example. mcdonalds.red
and mcdonalds.blue would point to different sites, and McDonald's Farm
Equipment would not be allowed to register in more than one TLD. The TLDs
would need to be great enough in number and generic enough so that one TLD
would not become more desireable than any other. That may be impossible to
solve... Colors may not work, alphabets have an order (is mcdonalds.a superior
to mcdonalds.b?), numbers have both an order and are not easy to remember, and
any words might combine fortunately or unfortunately with the domain a la
del.icio.us.
But, if an arbitrary TLD scheme could be come up with, typing "mcdonalds" in
a browser would find all registered mcdonaldses and display them possibly along
with a short description (from a meta html tag scraped from the website? or a
new DNS entry?). If there was only one mcdonalds, then the browser would
simply go there. This might be an unfair advantage to unique trademarks that
are then able to keep out any business with the same name...
And for those who need domain to IP address lookups without going through a
disambiguation process, they'd simply need to remember the correct TLD (red,
blue, etc.) much as is done now.
Well said. There seems little point in TLDs these days other than to cause
trademark fights. Why not take a page from heirarchy free websites and, if we
must keep some ghost of TLDs, implement a DNS tagging system. A domain could
be tagged with "com" or "org" or "whatever". Search engines and browsers would
be aware of this, if anyone cared. This could be run by the same folks who do
things now and be enforced so only educational institutions could be tagged
"edu" for example.
My favorite was at Staples office supply. The salesman told my grandmother a printer would be faster via USB than parallel port, trying to sell her a USB cable. Ok, USB may be faster, but hello, the printer is the bottleneck here! My grandmother was mesmerized and wouldn't listen to me, and I didn't press the issue.
Great post. Got a question about ISO speed in digital cameras: I'm having
trouble finding a straight answer from internet searches, but my guess is that
the ISO speed setting in a digital camera simply controls the gain or
amplification. More gain means less light is required, but any noise is
amplified along with the signal. Thus, lower gain is better if possible. Now,
as you say, lowering the ISO setting requires a slower shutter. But as the time
of exposure increases, so does thermally activated noise in digital sensors.
So my question is, how significant is this thermal noise increase? Is there a
tradeoff between gain noise and thermal noise such that for some shots
(assuming no motion so time is not of the essence) increased gain with fast
shutter would result in lower overall noise than the equivalent shot with low
gain and slow shutter? I suppose this would be sensor dependent, since smaller pixels are more susceptible to thermal noise.
I guess a better way to ask this would be: is "ISO" speed or "gain" a
simple amplification that could just as easily be applied by any photo
software? If so, I would think using the lowest gain would always be wisest.
If not, what tricks or information is the camera taking advantage of to emulate
ISO speed that a photo editor could not duplicate after the fact?
Would that even work? Space is... big. Geosynch orbit is what, 42,000 km out? Compared to 12,000 km earth diameter... The shockwave from the blast needs a medium through which to propogate I think, e.g. air. The EM pulse would need to overcome the fact that space is big.
Such venom... I'm only responding to this trollish post because I felt your previous posts were well thought out... First, copyright law explicitly allows the copying into RAM and other copying required to
execute a program on a computer. It's safe to assume any Apple EULA
does not attempt to forbid this...
I think it comes down to this: society has values and creates laws based on
these values. I am "free" to do anything I can do, but am limited by law and common sense (any limit on freedom needs to be weighed carefully, an assertion
I am unable to back up with logic). I am "free" to do anything that is
possible with Apple software, but am limited by copyright law. Apple is "free"
to come to my house and coerce me with force to not do something with their
software, though this is illegal and not what you meant; they are not "free" to
simply dictate what I may or may not do and expect me to obey (alternatively
they are "free" to do so but I am "free" to ignore). In this case, it is copyright law that limits my freedom, granting various rights to Apple. I wish copyright did not last so long, but for the sake of argument I agree with the general concept and don't believe it is particularly
unjust.
A separate issue, Apple wants me to agree to a contract specifiying what I
may and may not do over and above default copyright law. Not having purchased
any Apple software, I'm speculating a bit here; please correct as needed.
Based on my experience with other software however, the sale of boxed Apple
software is treated like any other retail sale of product such as a book, music
CD, lawnmower, what have you. The EULA is then presented after the sale upon opening or installing the software (again, I don't know how or when this
would happen with OS X) with no option to negotiate the terms. This is
underhanded trickery because every other retail sale is just that: a sale, not
a contract or license. If Apple wishes to merely license their product to me,
they had better make that clear up front. Now perhaps they do, unlike most
commercial software I've seen, but I still find the EULA extremely questionable
due to the absence of possible negotiation and what I consider unreasonable
terms such as the restriction to Apple hardware. So, if Apple requires me to agree to a proper contract prior to sale, then ok I'll keep my word or be punished as the laws I've agreed to live under see fit. Or more likely I'll reject the terms; personally, I find them absurd as buying a car that may only
be serviced by one shop. No contract, no dictating of terms by Apple. The only right other than copyright Apple has over the software is to not sell it to me.
As for my wife, I don't see what she has to do with any of this. She is free to do as she will under the law; she is not my
property. Apple and randy folk such as yourself may not legally force her
to do anything along the lines I assume you are suggesting.
Hm, you might be tipping me towards your way of thinking, though we're not
far apart... Either way, it's nice to have a civil exchange of ideas once in a
while, thanks; I'd shake your hand if I could.
But there are different levels of integrity, and the highest would
respect other's wishes with their property.
I see what you are saying, and mostly agree. At some point though, one's
wishes for what other people do with their property become unreasonable, and it
is not a failure of integrity to violate unreasonable wishes. I would, and
apparently so would you, feel some guilt about purchasing OS X and running it
on a generic box. But I believe, apparently unlike you, that I shouldn't feel
this guilt, for I believe that particular wish of Apple crosses the line.
Anyone remember (Jamie?) Kellner for example, who all but said getting up to
use the restroom during commercials on broadcast television should be illegal?
Get real... Of course if one explicitly promises to follow certain wishes then
I suppose one should do so. I personaly don't feel that typical EULAs are fair
negotiations or promises and largely ignore them while not ignoring copyright
law (mostly I just avoid such software anyway, but I don't feel it hurts my
integrity to violate a EULA that itself lacks any integrity).
Please rotate your monitor 180 degrees and only read this post while
standing on your head and reciting poetry. Thanks:-P
What you say about auto gain is true, but what I say is true as well. The
DMCA does indeed make it illegal to sell a VHS *recorder* that lacks "automatic
gain control copy control technology". See US
Code Title 17, Chapter 12, (something) 01, (k) (1) (A) (i); search for
"automatic gain control". I'm only speculating that the recording industry
would like to see similar laws applied to microphones and every analog
recording device.
I have never purchased a DVD. Though I can't say I don't ocassionally rent
one, and I have purchased a couple DVD players. One of those was a gift
purchased because it was region free, allowing my sister to watch DVDs she
acquired while living overseas, and Macrovision free, allowing us to run the
video output through our VCR and into our TV which only has RF coax input. I
have never violated copyright of a DVD but I have routinely broken the DRM
simply to watch the damned things. Once the law gets involved, then yes it is
about freedom.
I thought the goal was to have watermarks that would be recognized by
consumer recording gear which would then fail to record. I can't imagine that
working well... What if you were recording the sounds of traffic for
background noise of a movie and a car rolled by blasting some watermarked
music; would this break your recording? Oh, and they'd somehow restrict
"professional" gear to professionals. The DMCA already makes it illegal to sell
a VHS recorder without auto-gain (I think; the part that makes Macrovision copy
protection work), unless the sale is to someone who will be using the recorder
professionally (the DMCA defines this; I don't recall the exact wording).
Um, the parent isn't flamebait. Real does indeed develop open source
software for Linux. There's even a plugin for encoding video to Ogg Theora.
I've heard Windows users claim that it is the best way to play and encode
Theora on Windows...
That said, having never used RealProducer or any Helix software, why would I
want to use it? Like someone else said, they left a bad taste from previous
nagware, and the RealMedia-RealVideo-RealAudio format and codecs remain
proprietary and therefore uninteresting to me. I'd personally rather see
GStreamer become stable and get some good frontends.
Good heavens, such negative replies to the guy who wants to install OS X on
generic hardware. You seem to believe Apple can dictate what is done with
"its" so-called IP. Perhaps. There are certainly laws granting some of this
power to Apple. But only for limited times and only so far as the the granted
power promotes progress; they do not exist because Apple, or anyone, has some
innate right to dictate what is done with something sold to a third party.
A glance at apple.com suggests I can purchase a box of OS X without buying
Apple hardware, yes? DMCA considerations aside, I can and should be able to do
whatever I please with my purchase save copying it. This includes running it
on any hardware I please (copying software into RAM etc. for the purpose of
running it is not copyright violation). If Apple doesn't like it, then boo hoo
to them. If you don't like it, then boo hoo to you. If Apple won't provide
tech support for me, then boo hoo to me. What's good for Apple isn't
necessarily good. On one hand, you say Apple can dictate what is done with its
IP; on the other hand, by doing so Apple is limiting my freedom. If they won't
provide support, fine, but they need a better reason than "it's mine" to
convince me to limit my freedom.
I thought the name "Apple" came from Steve's job in an apple orchard. The biography at Mac News World states "1976: On April Fool's Day, Jobs and Wozniak incorporate Apple Computer. The name has its roots in the Beatles' record label and Jobs' time working in Oregon apple orchards."
I've used gems; it's very convenient from a single user who is writing ruby scripts and needs extension X. But say I want to distribute an application written in Ruby. In my Ruby code, I'll have "require 'some_ext' ", which won't work for those who have 'some_ext' installed via gems. Alternatively I could have "require 'rubygems'; require_gem 'some_ext'" which would work for the Gem users but not traditionaly installed extensions. Is there or will there be a solution to this, and what is it?
It seems the major hurdle in making code that uses either the Gem version or, if not there, the traditional version is the fact that Gems allow versioned includes, e.g. "include_gem 'some_ext >= 0.3' I've heard some complain about this and others state that this is a very useful feature.
One possible (but somewhat annoying) solution is to distribute a version with traditional includes and distribute a Gem using version via gems. Can Gems distribute apps (i.e. stuff that would go into/usr/bin) ? And even this would not solve the problem as I imagine much of the standard library would be installed traditionally even for users of gems, so the application would still not know how to require an extension.
I think he meant that AIM screen names are typically exchanged by friends prior to conversing, and one can be fairly sure that a given screen name is attached to the same person each conversation. Not that this is impossible with IRC, just less convenient.
Language is digital (as opposed to analog) in the sense that you
either use a word in a sentence or you don't. You can either use the word
"life" in a sentence or not but you can't use a fraction of the word ("li" or
"fe" don't mean fractional life - or anything at all for that matter). This
creates (willful?) confusion in the minds of people who are very focused on a
literal interprtation of language based laws and moral codes that "life" is a
binary distinction.
I believe the word you are looking for is "binary", not "digital"... Sure,
many words lack shades of grey, like your example of "life". And I would agree
that people look at many issues in black and white that are actually shades of
grey. Many words, however, do not come in only black or white. For example,
I can't decide if your post is subtley clever, merely ignorant, intentionally
wrong, or downright malicious. Am I feeling the blues, melancholy, depression,
misery, or utter despair? Is the color dark grey, ebony, pitch black, or jet
black?
I do not believe most people do see life in black and white.
They may indeed classify objects into the binary categories of "alive or not",
but they certainly do not treat all life as equal. Most people believe
murdering another human is unthinkable, would not eat their pet dog, but don't
think twice about buying steaks, swatting flys, or crushing grass as they walk
across the lawn.
Slashdot Mirror
As another poster hinted at, the RGB color model cannot encode every color the eye can see. It can encode every color today's monitors can display, or at least that's why it exists. However, when the output is something with higher color resolution or more importantly higher dynamic range such as film, more complete color models are needed, typically based on CIE XYZ. Furthermore, RGB is not a perceptual encoding; that is, it wastes bits in areas humans aren't likely to notice. Greg Ward's LogLuv format, for example, uses the L*u*v* color model (CIE XYZ based) to conserve bits and in 24bit mode encodes three orders of magnitude of dynamic range beyond RGB and just barely the smallest color difference the eye can detect. (LogLuv is typically used in 32 bit mode however, where it has more than 40 orders of magnitude of dynamic range beyond RGB's and finer colors). See Greg Ward's High Dynamic Range Image Encodings .
So, 24 bit color is as good as the eye can see on a computer monitor. Any image processing will require more bits to reduce rounding error artifacts, and any superior display will require better encodings to represent more colors and higher dynamic range.
Netgate and ThinkWiki are your friends. Yes, being a bitter Linux user isn't easy. I personally have not given up yet, having both a Radeon 9200 SE and a wifi card from Netgate. But it seems like things will never change, and it isn't very encouraging to see even the general slashdot vibe to be "pragmatism is god; clinging to some idealistic impossibility isn't pragmatic". Of course, to be pragmatic one must have a goal, and the goal is rarely stated or assumed to be "getting things done today" when it may very well be "advancing my personal view of what society should be" or "improving things". Will the next Linux be chicken-and-egged to death because no vendors will provide drivers because it isn't popular enough? I don't want to see the hobbyist OS die not from lack of effort but from lack of drivers. Linux is popular enough to get vendor written drivers in some areas where the spec is not available, but is left high and dry in other areas such as many webcams, scanners, and other consumer level devices.
It sounds to me like you are just arguing semantics... But I have a serious question. Start with a 100x100 pixel source (digital) (assume the same color space as JPEG uses, YUV 4:2:0 or whatever it may be). Reduce the file size 4:1 by two methods: in the first, scale the image to 50x50; in the second, compress using JPEG or some other lossy compression. Is it incorrect to view the first method as a naive lossy compression? I'm assuming, perhaps incorrectly, that JPEG is a non-naive lossy compression in that it attempts to discard data that won't be noticed. Now, given that the end user intends to view the image at 50x50, which method will result in a better picture? My first thought is that the 100x100 JPEG compressed image would, when scaled to 50x50, easily surpass the 50x50 image created by a simple scaling algorithm... Will this change if the user views at 100x100? Will this change if it's video instead of a still image?
What I really want to know is this: when preparing a video for online distribution, it is common to offer small, medium, and large files. For the small file, is it better to apply more lossy compression, or is it better to first scale down the video? Of course, if one opts for the more-lossy-compression route, the playback software will attempt to display the video at the full size when it may look better at a smaller size due to the lossiness...
Thanks for that link. I've seen the Shelky quote in a sig but never saw the context and wondered if was just a troll. The linked page focuses a lot on the Blizzard terms of service which I would think is very different from any software program that just runs on the user's computer and does not need to log on to Blizzard's servers (i.e. most software). It seems obvious that Blizzard can cancel the service (and cancel your bill) under any terms you agree to since the service involves Blizzard actually providing a service. With "normal" software, no service is provided; once the purchase is made the user needs nothing more to use the software. The only other case mentioned is the ProCD case which I am unfamiliar with but apparently involved someone copying a (not copyrightable) phone book from a CD of some phone book software (in violation of the EULA) and then making competing phone book software. If my assumptions are correct, that would not seem to bode well for the "EULA is not a valid contract" argument.
So, anyone have any more links or info on this subject? It just seems wrong to sell software in a box, much like a book, and then spring a EULA onto the user after he's gone to the trouble to buy and begin installing the damned thing. And what of the user modifying the EULA before clicking agree (even mailing the changes to the company)? This is possible with a large amount of software. I've also heard it's possible to do automated installation where the EULA is never even presented. Will the court simply assume that a EULA is to be expected these days and therefore it's up to the user to find it?
Here here. I saw this on slashdot some time ago... but has anyone tried paying for software in cash wrapped in a EULA that might, for example, nullify any EULA contained within the software box? I know your average store clerk couldn't care less... but it would be satisfying just the same. If witnessed, could such an act carry any weight in court in the event of a suit by the software publisher against you for violating the EULA? It certainly couldn't carry any less weight than the EULA?
I hate EULAs that look like a retail sale, and I hate non-CDs sold as if they were CDs. What happened to integrity?
Now that I think about it, the divisions into "com", "net", "org" help avoid collisions, but do so in a most useless manner. Say for example, that McDonalds is a purveyor of fine foods, and registers mcdonalds.com. Now, Old McDonald had a farm but now sells farm equipment and would like to register mcdonalds.com. Trademark law allows McDonald's Fast Food and McDonald's Farm Equipment to coexist, but it is unfair to allow one to register the domain but not the other. One soultion would be to deny mcdonalds.com from everyone, requiring mcdonalds-fast-food and mcdonalds-farm-equipment, but in a brand driven society this would probably fail for brands spanning a wide range of products.
I propose completely arbitrary TLDs to avoid collisions as an admission of the futility of attempting to classify domains with TLDs while keeping some collision avoidance. The new TLDs might be colors for example. mcdonalds.red and mcdonalds.blue would point to different sites, and McDonald's Farm Equipment would not be allowed to register in more than one TLD. The TLDs would need to be great enough in number and generic enough so that one TLD would not become more desireable than any other. That may be impossible to solve... Colors may not work, alphabets have an order (is mcdonalds.a superior to mcdonalds.b?), numbers have both an order and are not easy to remember, and any words might combine fortunately or unfortunately with the domain a la del.icio.us.
But, if an arbitrary TLD scheme could be come up with, typing "mcdonalds" in a browser would find all registered mcdonaldses and display them possibly along with a short description (from a meta html tag scraped from the website? or a new DNS entry?). If there was only one mcdonalds, then the browser would simply go there. This might be an unfair advantage to unique trademarks that are then able to keep out any business with the same name...
And for those who need domain to IP address lookups without going through a disambiguation process, they'd simply need to remember the correct TLD (red, blue, etc.) much as is done now.
Well said. There seems little point in TLDs these days other than to cause trademark fights. Why not take a page from heirarchy free websites and, if we must keep some ghost of TLDs, implement a DNS tagging system. A domain could be tagged with "com" or "org" or "whatever". Search engines and browsers would be aware of this, if anyone cared. This could be run by the same folks who do things now and be enforced so only educational institutions could be tagged "edu" for example.
My favorite was at Staples office supply. The salesman told my grandmother a printer would be faster via USB than parallel port, trying to sell her a USB cable. Ok, USB may be faster, but hello, the printer is the bottleneck here! My grandmother was mesmerized and wouldn't listen to me, and I didn't press the issue.
What exactly the purpose of Sun's killall? I'm sure it's useful to someone, but from here I have no idea why anyone would want to use it...?
Great post. Got a question about ISO speed in digital cameras: I'm having trouble finding a straight answer from internet searches, but my guess is that the ISO speed setting in a digital camera simply controls the gain or amplification. More gain means less light is required, but any noise is amplified along with the signal. Thus, lower gain is better if possible. Now, as you say, lowering the ISO setting requires a slower shutter. But as the time of exposure increases, so does thermally activated noise in digital sensors. So my question is, how significant is this thermal noise increase? Is there a tradeoff between gain noise and thermal noise such that for some shots (assuming no motion so time is not of the essence) increased gain with fast shutter would result in lower overall noise than the equivalent shot with low gain and slow shutter? I suppose this would be sensor dependent, since smaller pixels are more susceptible to thermal noise.
I guess a better way to ask this would be: is "ISO" speed or "gain" a simple amplification that could just as easily be applied by any photo software? If so, I would think using the lowest gain would always be wisest. If not, what tricks or information is the camera taking advantage of to emulate ISO speed that a photo editor could not duplicate after the fact?
Would that even work? Space is... big. Geosynch orbit is what, 42,000 km out? Compared to 12,000 km earth diameter... The shockwave from the blast needs a medium through which to propogate I think, e.g. air. The EM pulse would need to overcome the fact that space is big.
Such venom... I'm only responding to this trollish post because I felt your previous posts were well thought out... First, copyright law explicitly allows the copying into RAM and other copying required to execute a program on a computer. It's safe to assume any Apple EULA does not attempt to forbid this...
I think it comes down to this: society has values and creates laws based on these values. I am "free" to do anything I can do, but am limited by law and common sense (any limit on freedom needs to be weighed carefully, an assertion I am unable to back up with logic). I am "free" to do anything that is possible with Apple software, but am limited by copyright law. Apple is "free" to come to my house and coerce me with force to not do something with their software, though this is illegal and not what you meant; they are not "free" to simply dictate what I may or may not do and expect me to obey (alternatively they are "free" to do so but I am "free" to ignore). In this case, it is copyright law that limits my freedom, granting various rights to Apple. I wish copyright did not last so long, but for the sake of argument I agree with the general concept and don't believe it is particularly unjust.
A separate issue, Apple wants me to agree to a contract specifiying what I may and may not do over and above default copyright law. Not having purchased any Apple software, I'm speculating a bit here; please correct as needed. Based on my experience with other software however, the sale of boxed Apple software is treated like any other retail sale of product such as a book, music CD, lawnmower, what have you. The EULA is then presented after the sale upon opening or installing the software (again, I don't know how or when this would happen with OS X) with no option to negotiate the terms. This is underhanded trickery because every other retail sale is just that: a sale, not a contract or license. If Apple wishes to merely license their product to me, they had better make that clear up front. Now perhaps they do, unlike most commercial software I've seen, but I still find the EULA extremely questionable due to the absence of possible negotiation and what I consider unreasonable terms such as the restriction to Apple hardware. So, if Apple requires me to agree to a proper contract prior to sale, then ok I'll keep my word or be punished as the laws I've agreed to live under see fit. Or more likely I'll reject the terms; personally, I find them absurd as buying a car that may only be serviced by one shop. No contract, no dictating of terms by Apple. The only right other than copyright Apple has over the software is to not sell it to me.
As for my wife, I don't see what she has to do with any of this. She is free to do as she will under the law; she is not my property. Apple and randy folk such as yourself may not legally force her to do anything along the lines I assume you are suggesting.
Hm, you might be tipping me towards your way of thinking, though we're not far apart... Either way, it's nice to have a civil exchange of ideas once in a while, thanks; I'd shake your hand if I could.
I see what you are saying, and mostly agree. At some point though, one's wishes for what other people do with their property become unreasonable, and it is not a failure of integrity to violate unreasonable wishes. I would, and apparently so would you, feel some guilt about purchasing OS X and running it on a generic box. But I believe, apparently unlike you, that I shouldn't feel this guilt, for I believe that particular wish of Apple crosses the line. Anyone remember (Jamie?) Kellner for example, who all but said getting up to use the restroom during commercials on broadcast television should be illegal? Get real... Of course if one explicitly promises to follow certain wishes then I suppose one should do so. I personaly don't feel that typical EULAs are fair negotiations or promises and largely ignore them while not ignoring copyright law (mostly I just avoid such software anyway, but I don't feel it hurts my integrity to violate a EULA that itself lacks any integrity).
Please rotate your monitor 180 degrees and only read this post while standing on your head and reciting poetry. Thanks :-P
What you say about auto gain is true, but what I say is true as well. The DMCA does indeed make it illegal to sell a VHS *recorder* that lacks "automatic gain control copy control technology". See US Code Title 17, Chapter 12, (something) 01, (k) (1) (A) (i); search for "automatic gain control". I'm only speculating that the recording industry would like to see similar laws applied to microphones and every analog recording device.
I have never purchased a DVD. Though I can't say I don't ocassionally rent one, and I have purchased a couple DVD players. One of those was a gift purchased because it was region free, allowing my sister to watch DVDs she acquired while living overseas, and Macrovision free, allowing us to run the video output through our VCR and into our TV which only has RF coax input. I have never violated copyright of a DVD but I have routinely broken the DRM simply to watch the damned things. Once the law gets involved, then yes it is about freedom.
I thought the goal was to have watermarks that would be recognized by consumer recording gear which would then fail to record. I can't imagine that working well... What if you were recording the sounds of traffic for background noise of a movie and a car rolled by blasting some watermarked music; would this break your recording? Oh, and they'd somehow restrict "professional" gear to professionals. The DMCA already makes it illegal to sell a VHS recorder without auto-gain (I think; the part that makes Macrovision copy protection work), unless the sale is to someone who will be using the recorder professionally (the DMCA defines this; I don't recall the exact wording).
Um, the parent isn't flamebait. Real does indeed develop open source software for Linux. There's even a plugin for encoding video to Ogg Theora. I've heard Windows users claim that it is the best way to play and encode Theora on Windows...
That said, having never used RealProducer or any Helix software, why would I want to use it? Like someone else said, they left a bad taste from previous nagware, and the RealMedia-RealVideo-RealAudio format and codecs remain proprietary and therefore uninteresting to me. I'd personally rather see GStreamer become stable and get some good frontends.
Good heavens, such negative replies to the guy who wants to install OS X on generic hardware. You seem to believe Apple can dictate what is done with "its" so-called IP. Perhaps. There are certainly laws granting some of this power to Apple. But only for limited times and only so far as the the granted power promotes progress; they do not exist because Apple, or anyone, has some innate right to dictate what is done with something sold to a third party.
A glance at apple.com suggests I can purchase a box of OS X without buying Apple hardware, yes? DMCA considerations aside, I can and should be able to do whatever I please with my purchase save copying it. This includes running it on any hardware I please (copying software into RAM etc. for the purpose of running it is not copyright violation). If Apple doesn't like it, then boo hoo to them. If you don't like it, then boo hoo to you. If Apple won't provide tech support for me, then boo hoo to me. What's good for Apple isn't necessarily good. On one hand, you say Apple can dictate what is done with its IP; on the other hand, by doing so Apple is limiting my freedom. If they won't provide support, fine, but they need a better reason than "it's mine" to convince me to limit my freedom.
I thought the name "Apple" came from Steve's job in an apple orchard. The biography at Mac News World states "1976: On April Fool's Day, Jobs and Wozniak incorporate Apple Computer. The name has its roots in the Beatles' record label and Jobs' time working in Oregon apple orchards."
The article Apple Trademark Battle With The Beatles Goes to UK High Court suggest that Apple Computer and Apple Corps. had reached an agreement after several previous trademark disputes.
I bought the T-shirt; does that count?
I've used gems; it's very convenient from a single user who is writing ruby scripts and needs extension X. But say I want to distribute an application written in Ruby. In my Ruby code, I'll have "require 'some_ext' ", which won't work for those who have 'some_ext' installed via gems. Alternatively I could have "require 'rubygems'; require_gem 'some_ext'" which would work for the Gem users but not traditionaly installed extensions. Is there or will there be a solution to this, and what is it?
It seems the major hurdle in making code that uses either the Gem version or, if not there, the traditional version is the fact that Gems allow versioned includes, e.g. "include_gem 'some_ext >= 0.3' I've heard some complain about this and others state that this is a very useful feature.
One possible (but somewhat annoying) solution is to distribute a version with traditional includes and distribute a Gem using version via gems. Can Gems distribute apps (i.e. stuff that would go into /usr/bin) ? And even this would not solve the problem as I imagine much of the standard library would be installed traditionally even for users of gems, so the application would still not know how to require an extension.
Can't join CSV eh? $ ruby -e 'p [1,2,3,4].join(",")' :-P
I think he meant that AIM screen names are typically exchanged by friends prior to conversing, and one can be fairly sure that a given screen name is attached to the same person each conversation. Not that this is impossible with IRC, just less convenient.
I believe the word you are looking for is "binary", not "digital"... Sure, many words lack shades of grey, like your example of "life". And I would agree that people look at many issues in black and white that are actually shades of grey. Many words, however, do not come in only black or white. For example, I can't decide if your post is subtley clever, merely ignorant, intentionally wrong, or downright malicious. Am I feeling the blues, melancholy, depression, misery, or utter despair? Is the color dark grey, ebony, pitch black, or jet black?
I do not believe most people do see life in black and white. They may indeed classify objects into the binary categories of "alive or not", but they certainly do not treat all life as equal. Most people believe murdering another human is unthinkable, would not eat their pet dog, but don't think twice about buying steaks, swatting flys, or crushing grass as they walk across the lawn.