Divx gives reasonable quality at only around 1500kbps. If their quote is true then I'd expect Dirac to use about 4000kbps on broadcast video - so how does it compete with current codecs at all?
reasonable quality != broadcast quality.
If Dirac had a 'reasonable quality' mode, then you'd likely see it at 2000kbps which is getting close. They say they are still optimising it, so perhaps they can come to within a gnat's whisker of Divx compression.
yeah, Linux is secure in this regard only because it limits raw socket connections to root. If XP Home had such a concept (don't forget this is for home users), then they could restrict it in the same way.
As it happens, this only applies to "puts limits on outbound incomplete TCP connections" which is like preventing you from getting killed in a traffic accident by ensuring you can only drive 1 car at a time.
I recall the controversary over Raw sockets when they first appeared in XP - many people said they would be a security risk, and it sounds like they were right.
So now MS removes this feature that shouldn;t have been there in the first place, and everyone is up in arms about it. Maybe that's a little exaggerated..
I refer to the 'it ran windows and was crap, so I installed linux and everything was fine forevermore'. Why do they keep getting modded insightful?
--
'Back in 1947, I saw the ENIAC system being deployed, but what a load of rubbish it was. It couldn't do a batch job unless you ran it overnight, needed a whole 16 k of valves to process any of its bloated hide, so one day, while the admins were off standing in a ration queue, I installed linux and KDE, and not only did no-one notice, except to say how much smoother it felt, but it made the country into the economic powerhouse we have today, and solved world hunger too.'
In many ways, I think that MS has won, if everyone thinks that IBM will come charging to the rescue.
IBM has spent a lot of money on F/OSS software.. but not out of the kindness of their hearts, but to keep their position as a consultancy. Linux is free, we give it away, but the consultant charges....
So, really, in this environment, you've a choice between buying MS software, or Solaris software, or.. buying IBM's free linux software.. it'll all cost you.
Sure, the benefit to the hobbyist is great, but in the corporate world, nothing much has changed except market share percentages.
Wrong. well good for you, you have an RFID-style vicinity card that you use.
I lifted that quote straight from a manufacturer's website, you'd think they know the operating characteristics of their cards now wouldn't you?
In any case, there are different types of cards, ranging from ones you have to touch to the pad (close-coupled cards) to ones that operate a small distance away (proximity cards) and ones like you have, (vicinity cards) not to mention real RFID tags. It makes a big difference on the application depending on which type you have, and the only one that raises any the spooks-are-watching-us concerns are the ones like you have. Most cards are the close-coupled ones.
Why is everything RFID, and why is it suddenly a privacy issue. Don't bother answering that question, please.
Smartcards like this are usually contactless in that they can be at most several millimetres away from the reader (The power levels achieved typically allow only a very small separation (a few millimeters) between the card and the reader.)
I guess that They can increase the power signal until a satellite can read it, but AFAIK if they can do that, privacy issues are the least of my worries.
except that the 'my patents are bigger than yours' defence won't work against the patent-profiteers like Eolas.
I'm sure that Eolas would go against a large, sueable organisation like Munich if they thought it could get another few million.
At least with MS software, you can hand the defence over to them and their fancy lawyers, whereas with Linux you'd be pretty much alone. I think this is the biggest obstacle to FOSS takeup.
Incidentally, I really doubt MS would use its patent portfolio to enforce its market share, they've played quite nicely so far, and would take a massive PR hit.
air superiority is vital in taking ground, but once you've done that.. what do you do?
Especially if you have a highly mobile, extremely light infantry opponent.
I mean, what would you do, turn up, blow everything up with your aircraft, then go away. Give it a couple of weeks and the enemy will have re-taken their territory. Come back with the planes and this time you'll find they're well hidden... what do you do then?
You need infantry to take ground, and armour to keep it.
Perhaps one day someone will come up with a strategy game where you play the guerilla force (maybe 'red dawn' - themed USA, or Terminator post-war). Then all the kiddies can see how ineffective air power is after the initial shock.
I think it has nothing to do with Open source, but with the GPL.
MS says 'if you want to use this patent, you have to get a licence'. The GPL says 'once its in, its licenced under the GPL and you can give it away'. A little simplistic explanation there, but I hope you get the idea.
The argument against patenting doesn't make much difference though, even if the majority of MS patents are shown to be spurious, they will still have some good ones that will be effectual. Personally, I would like to see crappy patents kicked out, then everyone would know where they stand with the real patents that are worthy the system. (and that applies to all patent-owning companies, not just Microsoft, and especially those that do nothing but patent crap.)
I think this is because Paypal will charge your credit card, and there are quite a lot of consumer laws concerning cards that state you must have a course of redress if anything goes wrong, re-billing if the card they accept turns out to be stolen etc etc.
The difference with cash is that you're not playing with credit - just real money, and that's not regulated.
I think Paypal just want to be an intermediary with no obligations other than to say 'nothing to do with us mate', and 'we have charged you our fee for using paypal. have a nice day'.
Unfortunately, that message was screwed by the GPL licence - if he'd made the LGPL first, it would have been a lot better now.
'do what you want with it' isn't really appropriate under the GPL as you can't issue your work under a different licence. With LGPL you can, and still keep the freedoms of the original source.
Imagine a world where the TCP/IP implementation wasn't issued under a BSD licence... we'd all be using IPX/SPX:)
its probably a good thing. If anyone could amend the software, they could, for example, add a section that says 'but accpet all spam.com emails'.
I understood that the protocol was to be made into a standard, so how would changing the software help us?
The Licence (pdf) says that MS grants you a non-transferable licence to use it and sell it on to end-users.
If you do redistribute the source code, its fine, but you must add a clause to your licence that says the software may contain IP owned by MS, and that anyone obtaining such derived source must go ask MS for permission to use their bits directly - you can't give that away.
So I can only surmise that when RMS says it is incompatible with free software, he means the GPL. It is acceptable to use the software, look at it, but you can give it to someone else, but they cannot take away the terms MS set. Sounds a bit like the GPL, but with different terms. (hey RMS, you don't want to agree to those terms, you don't have to use the software).
Microsoft practically gives away software to academia, hook 'em and keep 'em is the reason why.
There is absolutely no reason why MS would care how many copies of its software you used. As long as when you left, joined a company and bought the licence for you to use then.
Its an excellent marketing strategy, costs MS nothing (that they'd get otherwise) and they also get to appear to be playing nice with poor academic institutions.
I know, you can check for an interface and if true - you know the right methods are implemented. I think its a bit like adding methods in a 'strongly typed' way.
However, each class still has to write its own implementation of the interface methods. That's the problem with interface inheritance, compared with implementation inheritance, and its just a shame that SI is the only way to get that with many languages nowadays.
eg. if you have the comparable interface, for objects that are all vehicles.. then you can compare cars to vans (by weight say), stick the Comparable interface on the '4-wheeled-chassis' base class and you'll be fine. Until you want to stick bikes in the collection, where you'll have to re-implement the code that compares weight when you inherit the '2-wheeled-chassis' class with Comparable.
Then, one day, the business decides that vehicles are to be sorted according to model, and now you have to change 2 methods (the interface on 4-wheeled and 2-wheeled), instead of 1 (if you used implementation inheritance).
Sure, for the Java API, having it as an interface makes sense, as they don't know what you'll be sorting on, so you'll always write new code. In your own code though, often you don't want to reimplement the same methods all the time.
That's the biggest problem with interface inheritance compared with implementation. However, it is easier for the language writers to put it in their language..... hrmpf.
No-one is criticising the idea of inheritance - just that whilst your model of simple, single inheritance is fine, when you try to inherit off 2 interfaces, you have problems. Sure, every one of your objects are accessible through the Configurable method, but the code that does stuff to them has to be written each time for each object. You cannot have a common class that is inherited for managing the core of the configuration whilst also inheriting off another class.
The reason this is done was not becuase of any problems with MI, but because implementing single inheritance in a language is much, much easier.
Interfaces are good, but frankly, you could just cut and paste the same method signatures into your classes and end up with the same result.
extensions are not a hack at all. They're an excellent piece of human-computer usability.
Think about it.. without extensions you'd have to open every file (well, the OS would) in order to tell you what it was.. all formats would have to contain information on their content too - in a standard way (is that image a jpg or a gif?)
This would be really slow.
Then as well - how would you, the human, know what a file was? (is that image a jpg or a mp3 with an image of the album cover displayed?)
That'd be less that ideal from a user perspective.
So, instead we have a file extension that tells you explicitly, in a very fast way, what the file type is. I know some OSes will hide the extension from the filename but then you're reduced to looking at the icon which describes what the file type is instead...
So, al in all, instead of asking to get rid of extensions, you should pray for all future technology to use techniques as simple and effective as this one.
Slashdot Mirror
Divx gives reasonable quality at only around 1500kbps. If their quote is true then I'd expect Dirac to use about 4000kbps on broadcast video - so how does it compete with current codecs at all?
reasonable quality != broadcast quality.
If Dirac had a 'reasonable quality' mode, then you'd likely see it at 2000kbps which is getting close. They say they are still optimising it, so perhaps they can come to within a gnat's whisker of Divx compression.
The list according to a reputable website:
:)
207.46.144.188 (@microsoft.com)
216.250.128.21 (@sco.com)
what, you don't think slashdot is reputable? wash out your mouth with soap
yeah, Linux is secure in this regard only because it limits raw socket connections to root. If XP Home had such a concept (don't forget this is for home users), then they could restrict it in the same way.
As it happens, this only applies to "puts limits on outbound incomplete TCP connections" which is like preventing you from getting killed in a traffic accident by ensuring you can only drive 1 car at a time.
I recall the controversary over Raw sockets when they first appeared in XP - many people said they would be a security risk, and it sounds like they were right.
So now MS removes this feature that shouldn;t have been there in the first place, and everyone is up in arms about it. Maybe that's a little exaggerated..
Remember this?
not this karma-whoring post yet again.
I refer to the 'it ran windows and was crap, so I installed linux and everything was fine forevermore'. Why do they keep getting modded insightful?
--
'Back in 1947, I saw the ENIAC system being deployed, but what a load of rubbish it was. It couldn't do a batch job unless you ran it overnight, needed a whole 16 k of valves to process any of its bloated hide, so one day, while the admins were off standing in a ration queue, I installed linux and KDE, and not only did no-one notice, except to say how much smoother it felt, but it made the country into the economic powerhouse we have today, and solved world hunger too.'
--
Please, somebody stop them!
strangely enough, I cut and pasted parts (ahem) of the original article I read. I didn't add much myself. The BBC article has since been updated.
:)
So, in this case, you can't read the article
In many ways, I think that MS has won, if everyone thinks that IBM will come charging to the rescue.
IBM has spent a lot of money on F/OSS software.. but not out of the kindness of their hearts, but to keep their position as a consultancy. Linux is free, we give it away, but the consultant charges....
So, really, in this environment, you've a choice between buying MS software, or Solaris software, or.. buying IBM's free linux software.. it'll all cost you.
Sure, the benefit to the hobbyist is great, but in the corporate world, nothing much has changed except market share percentages.
Wrong. well good for you, you have an RFID-style vicinity card that you use.
I lifted that quote straight from a manufacturer's website, you'd think they know the operating characteristics of their cards now wouldn't you?
In any case, there are different types of cards, ranging from ones you have to touch to the pad (close-coupled cards) to ones that operate a small distance away (proximity cards) and ones like you have, (vicinity cards) not to mention real RFID tags. It makes a big difference on the application depending on which type you have, and the only one that raises any the spooks-are-watching-us concerns are the ones like you have. Most cards are the close-coupled ones.
Why is everything RFID, and why is it suddenly a privacy issue. Don't bother answering that question, please.
Smartcards like this are usually contactless in that they can be at most several millimetres away from the reader (The power levels achieved typically allow only a very small separation (a few millimeters) between the card and the reader.)
I guess that They can increase the power signal until a satellite can read it, but AFAIK if they can do that, privacy issues are the least of my worries.
except that the 'my patents are bigger than yours' defence won't work against the patent-profiteers like Eolas.
I'm sure that Eolas would go against a large, sueable organisation like Munich if they thought it could get another few million.
At least with MS software, you can hand the defence over to them and their fancy lawyers, whereas with Linux you'd be pretty much alone. I think this is the biggest obstacle to FOSS takeup.
Incidentally, I really doubt MS would use its patent portfolio to enforce its market share, they've played quite nicely so far, and would take a massive PR hit.
air superiority is vital in taking ground, but once you've done that.. what do you do?
Especially if you have a highly mobile, extremely light infantry opponent.
I mean, what would you do, turn up, blow everything up with your aircraft, then go away. Give it a couple of weeks and the enemy will have re-taken their territory. Come back with the planes and this time you'll find they're well hidden... what do you do then?
You need infantry to take ground, and armour to keep it.
Perhaps one day someone will come up with a strategy game where you play the guerilla force (maybe 'red dawn' - themed USA, or Terminator post-war). Then all the kiddies can see how ineffective air power is after the initial shock.
I think it has nothing to do with Open source, but with the GPL.
MS says 'if you want to use this patent, you have to get a licence'. The GPL says 'once its in, its licenced under the GPL and you can give it away'. A little simplistic explanation there, but I hope you get the idea.
The argument against patenting doesn't make much difference though, even if the majority of MS patents are shown to be spurious, they will still have some good ones that will be effectual.
Personally, I would like to see crappy patents kicked out, then everyone would know where they stand with the real patents that are worthy the system. (and that applies to all patent-owning companies, not just Microsoft, and especially those that do nothing but patent crap.)
I thought they were wanting to buy Novell, not SCO?
:)
I'm really confused now
I think this is because Paypal will charge your credit card, and there are quite a lot of consumer laws concerning cards that state you must have a course of redress if anything goes wrong, re-billing if the card they accept turns out to be stolen etc etc.
The difference with cash is that you're not playing with credit - just real money, and that's not regulated.
I think Paypal just want to be an intermediary with no obligations other than to say 'nothing to do with us mate', and 'we have charged you our fee for using paypal. have a nice day'.
not only that, the OP will get requests from friends and family on how to use the system he's installed for them.
Unfortunately, that message was screwed by the GPL licence - if he'd made the LGPL first, it would have been a lot better now.
... we'd all be using IPX/SPX :)
'do what you want with it' isn't really appropriate under the GPL as you can't issue your work under a different licence. With LGPL you can, and still keep the freedoms of the original source.
Imagine a world where the TCP/IP implementation wasn't issued under a BSD licence
its probably a good thing. If anyone could amend the software, they could, for example, add a section that says 'but accpet all spam.com emails'.
I understood that the protocol was to be made into a standard, so how would changing the software help us?
The Licence (pdf) says that MS grants you a non-transferable licence to use it and sell it on to end-users.
If you do redistribute the source code, its fine, but you must add a clause to your licence that says the software may contain IP owned by MS, and that anyone obtaining such derived source must go ask MS for permission to use their bits directly - you can't give that away.
So I can only surmise that when RMS says it is incompatible with free software, he means the GPL. It is acceptable to use the software, look at it, but you can give it to someone else, but they cannot take away the terms MS set. Sounds a bit like the GPL, but with different terms. (hey RMS, you don't want to agree to those terms, you don't have to use the software).
which is about 8-10 degrees too warm for most common freshwater tropical fish
Are you saying I have to get a heatsink and fan to cool it down then?
well, once you and your mates have bluejacked each other (to see how it's done), then you'll turn bluetooth functionality off and go back to using IR.
eg. Bluejack
How to
how to
Bluetooth generally is used for communicating with a headset. (which interferes with the wired telephones in our office BTW, really strange).
I can't think of any other use for it, that you'd actually use.
Microsoft practically gives away software to academia, hook 'em and keep 'em is the reason why.
There is absolutely no reason why MS would care how many copies of its software you used. As long as when you left, joined a company and bought the licence for you to use then.
Its an excellent marketing strategy, costs MS nothing (that they'd get otherwise) and they also get to appear to be playing nice with poor academic institutions.
I am also amazed at his prediction that TV's and computer's will know what I want to see.
;)
you've not heard of PVRs then?
Especially since often I have no idea what I want to watch and make a habit of channel surfing
Well, maybe, but there again, the PVR-of-the-future may decide that you're only interested in naked breasts, car crashes and flashing lights
I know, you can check for an interface and if true - you know the right methods are implemented. I think its a bit like adding methods in a 'strongly typed' way.
However, each class still has to write its own implementation of the interface methods. That's the problem with interface inheritance, compared with implementation inheritance, and its just a shame that SI is the only way to get that with many languages nowadays.
eg. if you have the comparable interface, for objects that are all vehicles.. then you can compare cars to vans (by weight say), stick the Comparable interface on the '4-wheeled-chassis' base class and you'll be fine. Until you want to stick bikes in the collection, where you'll have to re-implement the code that compares weight when you inherit the '2-wheeled-chassis' class with Comparable.
Then, one day, the business decides that vehicles are to be sorted according to model, and now you have to change 2 methods (the interface on 4-wheeled and 2-wheeled), instead of 1 (if you used implementation inheritance).
Sure, for the Java API, having it as an interface makes sense, as they don't know what you'll be sorting on, so you'll always write new code. In your own code though, often you don't want to reimplement the same methods all the time.
That's the biggest problem with interface inheritance compared with implementation. However, it is easier for the language writers to put it in their language..... hrmpf.
No-one is criticising the idea of inheritance - just that whilst your model of simple, single inheritance is fine, when you try to inherit off 2 interfaces, you have problems. Sure, every one of your objects are accessible through the Configurable method, but the code that does stuff to them has to be written each time for each object. You cannot have a common class that is inherited for managing the core of the configuration whilst also inheriting off another class.
The reason this is done was not becuase of any problems with MI, but because implementing single inheritance in a language is much, much easier.
Interfaces are good, but frankly, you could just cut and paste the same method signatures into your classes and end up with the same result.
in case anyone else thought strictnein got his billions and millions mixed up..
This page shows you that latest numbers are 70% of subscribers use GSM, 12% CDMA.
Incidentally, the US are the heaviest users of mobile tech - 458 minutes per month on average!
extensions are not a hack at all. They're an excellent piece of human-computer usability.
Think about it.. without extensions you'd have to open every file (well, the OS would) in order to tell you what it was.. all formats would have to contain information on their content too - in a standard way (is that image a jpg or a gif?)
This would be really slow.
Then as well - how would you, the human, know what a file was? (is that image a jpg or a mp3 with an image of the album cover displayed?)
That'd be less that ideal from a user perspective.
So, instead we have a file extension that tells you explicitly, in a very fast way, what the file type is. I know some OSes will hide the extension from the filename but then you're reduced to looking at the icon which describes what the file type is instead...
So, al in all, instead of asking to get rid of extensions, you should pray for all future technology to use techniques as simple and effective as this one.