Nope, Atom's not "it" either. Cortex-A9 cores will perform at the same level or higher (albeit with ARM instead of x86...) and consume quite a bit less than Atom does right now.
Atom has a chance at making a go at competing in this space, but it's not there by a longshot yet.
Yeah...they would. Barely. I'm familiar with that little deal, having grown up in the heart of Tornado Alley.
However, I would think that as long as they got decent reception down there, they could battery power a DTV converter and shortly there should be battery powered DTV units. It's not a lot more expensive to make the things (actually, it can be CHEAPER if done right...) and the reception would be the only concern at that point.
Keep in mind, though, most of the stations are going to be in the UHF space. Different propagation rules, coupled with the need for adequate antennas (Most of the small off the shelf antennas won't cut it even with the increased allowed power available...), means you're going to have problems.
Most of the indoor antennas being sold right at the moment as "HDTV Ready" are garbage for DTV/HDTV. Honest.
That all comes from listening to and buying the stuff from the performers signed to the RIAA member labels.
Best answer, medium to long-term, is to not do either and do what you can to make it clear to those selfsame performers WHY you're not listening to them any more.
Even with 5K as a rough estimate, that's dirt-cheap overall. And, surprisingly, you can cut corners as needed (Getting a refurbed laptop, for example...) and sometimes you're reaching for that "crap mic" sound with some recordings anyhow...;-)
Actually, in order for it to be profitable, it HAS to apply to the cost per download SOMEHOW. Otherwise, if an item doesn't sell well (song sucked afterall), they can't see any return and have to hope on runaway sellers.
Everything has the costs to develop embedded in the prices of those things if they're for sale.
Software. Music. Movies. Computers. Etc.
If you don't think it applies, great. Go and start your own virtual label and make up some stuff. Charge what you think it should be without putting ANY expenses to provide it (including your bandwidth costs.) and we'll see just how long your business lasts...
Considering that the item doesn't physically exist, you can't move it somewhere else, and is downloaded, yeah- this actually constitutes more of a rental than a real purchase. Every other place that sells you a downloadable allow you to download it umpteen times if you like.
I'm spending quite a bit for business service with FiOS. I explicitly expect NO hassles out of them for "bandwidth usage", etc. And, so far, I've gotten nada. I'm spending quite a bit more than the average person, but in the end, I consider getting nearly a half T3 feed (That acts like one...) for only $170/mo a pretty good deal, really.
I think you're disconnecting "consequences" with the actual act.
No, there's really no restriction on yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater- but you'd better be prepared to face the civil liabilities if there really isn't a fire going on that you know of (which are those consequences on your free speech incurs when you do it.) Same goes for Libel and Slander.
You're perfectly free to do whatever you want.
There are just some civil or criminal consequences for some actions and you should be prepared to have someone call you on it if you do them as there are consequences for your misuses of your freedoms in question.
Okay... I found out WHY you haven't got documentation.
In many hardware companies in Taiwan (and even smaller hardware companies that I've seen in US/Europe) it is "standard practise" to not have hardware reference documentation. Sure, the pinout and electrical side is documented, since board manufacturers need to integrate the hardware.
Guess what, VIA's got a serious problem on their hands because of those "standard practices".
Why any mods saw fit to mod your post as "informative" is beyond me. But then, this IS/. afterall...
14th Amendment:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Please note the part: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Many States do not consider you a Citizen of the State in question unless you meet certain specific criteria, which can and usually includes residency in the State in question for at least one or more years. Sometimes there are other requirements, but in the end, many, myself included are Citizens of the STATE that they reside in which counts BEFORE the US jurisdiction per the Constitution in many cases.
I am sorry to say that there is no quick solution for FOSS support of Chrome9 products. It is one of the hottest topics of my work inside VIA, and everyone is trying their best to find a solution. I cannot disclose any details for the reasons for this difficulty, but any possible solution is likely going to take quite a significant amount of time.
Shame. Easiest answer would be to divulge the programming info for the GPU cores in question. Something AMD managed to do.
I suspect you have a serious problem on your hands though, based on your response regarding S3, which still claims itself as being a VIA "joint venture". Typically, the parents of a joint venture has a bit more pull on the child company than you're implying. While they're autonomous, you would typically have enough pull to at least do things like dump programming info on the IGP lineup.
For 3D FOSS support (Xorg/DRI/DRM/Mesa driver) for unichrome / unichrome pro the situation is much better and we will see that code disclosed at some not too distant point in the future.
Time, really, is something VIA doesn't have a lot of on their side at this point. You have Intel breathing down your necks and while the Isiah CPU is an awesome product from the things you've been demoing, it doesn't do any good for you if the IGP you're relying upon in the netbook and baseline ITX board lineup hasn't any support for things like 3D or video acceleration in it's support on Linux. Something Intel's already got lined up- in spades compared to VIA. Power consumption or speed of the CPU doesn't buy you anything if you can't USE them.
Just think of what ATI has been going through some time ago. They were unable to release the source for their existing binary-only driver and had to start a new driver, which needs time.
Heh... It's funny that you should mention ATI. AMD had to do that, yes. But, you missed mention of the other thing AMD has done- give out technical documentation for most of the chipset's functionality. They're even working on divulging the 3D programming info on their latest offerings right now. Now, I'm not saying that VIA (or you for that matter) are in a position to fix that situation on the UniChrome/Chrome9 components. But to say that AMD's situation is even roughly analogous to yours and that it takes time is a bit disingenious, Harald, because of the other little detail.
I think the GP poster was referring to a design miss/fail on VIA's part.
Without credible driver support (which they still don't have...) they don't get to have their foot in the door on a lot of designs. I suspect that the GP poster was referring to the fact that his company chose something else instead of an EPIA or similar design for set-top boxes because they don't have the right stuff with regards to Linux.
Indeed. I see this as being analogous to that very situation.
This EULA is silly and it's come time to point this out to them by doing something they didn't expect, much like the Debian community did with it back when they had issues with it themselves.
The reality is, the EULA covers the Trademark. The only time this comes into play as a licensing requirement is when someone tries to USE the name "Firefox" in conjunction with a web browser.
End users will just simply USE the product in question. Distributors are a different matter. You don't need END USERS to agree to not misuse their trademark- they don't really count all that much and it's very, very silly to make someone do it other than as a vehicle to FORCE the distributions to package it precisely as the Firefox team want it to be done because it's very annoying for the EULA piece to begin with.
eeproms existed back then. They weren't very robust on erases, compared to flash, but they DID exist- and this doesn't even get into battery backed RAM. Just because flash memory is more ideal for this sort of thing, doesn't mean that you couldn't have done it or there wasn't some sort of tech that could have accomplished it in that day. Prior to the timeframe in question, I'd have to concur with you both, but...
The problem with your thinking on at least this patent is that he patented what would SEEM like SF, but had a real implementation. It wasn't practical enough at the time (one song...but it DID work, so it's not SF, unfortunately...) so he couldn't make the business idea go and the patent lapsed.
There's a few other good ideas like that which have slipped through the cracks over the years.
I have a feeling you need to get a better antenna. Many of the antennas that "worked" with the old Analog service (with snowy reception...) won't get you sufficient signal to work with on the DTV.
1) The signal from the DTV systems is as low as 1/10th the old signal levels. This is because you don't need as much radiated power to accomplish the same results for the market so long as everyone's got the right gear.
2) The signal from the DTV systems has to be at a higher signal strength off of the antenna for it to produce something resembling a picture. It's more of an "all or nothing" prospect with DTV- and you need something like 45% of peak signal strength in from the antenna to get reliable reception.
3) Most stations are in the UHF band, not the VHF band. Regular rabbit-ears will not resolve the signal correctly.
4) Most of what they're flogging for DTV reception in the over the counter antenna space is pure unadulterated RUBBISH that wouldn't work save within 10 or so miles of the towers. Case in fact: I've an OLD Optima antenna that is now marketed by GE. This antenna brings in crystal-clear reception of 3/4ths of the official stations in this market without amplification on my DTV adapter I got with my coupon. The 50dB gain Phillips antenna I bought for that purpose, however, can't bring in jack at my location, amplification and all. The model's flawed as this has been with several units this way.
I'd advise a better antenna, based on a check on the antennaweb site to match your locale with a proper antenna model for the stations you've got. If you are running with "rabbit-ears", the larger the UHF profile for the antenna you have, the better the unit will be. Cheap antennas may not work for your location- you might need a "Silver Sensor", Optima, RCA Flat-Panel patch antenna or similar with an antenna amplifier to pick the signal up a bit.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not a "right"- he's just lucky he can get reception in the first place on those stations.
He's not IN that official market to begin with and he's DX-ing the stations. The FCC won't care. The stations won't care.
Not any more it's not...
Beagleboard brings that sort of hardware to you at a reasonable price-point...
Pandora's not out yet, but will be.
Not to mention that Maemo's intrinsically a Debian derivative and you can buy Nokia's web tablets storefront in a lot of places and online.
Nope, Atom's not "it" either. Cortex-A9 cores will perform at the same level or higher (albeit with ARM instead of x86...) and consume quite a bit less than Atom does right now.
Atom has a chance at making a go at competing in this space, but it's not there by a longshot yet.
Yeah...they would. Barely. I'm familiar with that little deal, having grown up in the heart of Tornado Alley.
However, I would think that as long as they got decent reception down there, they could battery power a DTV converter and shortly there should be battery powered DTV units. It's not a lot more expensive to make the things (actually, it can be CHEAPER if done right...) and the reception would be the only concern at that point.
Keep in mind, though, most of the stations are going to be in the UHF space. Different propagation rules, coupled with the need for adequate antennas (Most of the small off the shelf antennas won't cut it even with the increased allowed power available...), means you're going to have problems.
Most of the indoor antennas being sold right at the moment as "HDTV Ready" are garbage for DTV/HDTV. Honest.
That all comes from listening to and buying the stuff from the performers signed to the RIAA member labels.
Best answer, medium to long-term, is to not do either and do what you can to make it clear to those selfsame performers WHY you're not listening to them any more.
Even with 5K as a rough estimate, that's dirt-cheap overall. And, surprisingly, you can cut corners as needed (Getting a refurbed laptop, for example...) and sometimes you're reaching for that "crap mic" sound with some recordings anyhow... ;-)
Actually, in order for it to be profitable, it HAS to apply to the cost per download SOMEHOW. Otherwise, if an item doesn't sell well (song sucked afterall), they can't see any return and have to hope on runaway sellers.
Everything has the costs to develop embedded in the prices of those things if they're for sale.
Software.
Music.
Movies.
Computers.
Etc.
If you don't think it applies, great. Go and start your own virtual label and make up some stuff. Charge what you think it should be without putting ANY expenses to provide it (including your bandwidth costs.) and we'll see just how long your business lasts...
Guess you'll be waiting quite a while then...
No. The CD in question is a physical item.
The DOWNLOAD is not.
Considering that the item doesn't physically exist, you can't move it somewhere else, and is downloaded, yeah- this actually constitutes more of a rental than a real purchase. Every other place that sells you a downloadable allow you to download it umpteen times if you like.
I'll concur...
I'm spending quite a bit for business service with FiOS. I explicitly expect NO hassles out of them for "bandwidth usage", etc. And, so far, I've gotten nada. I'm spending quite a bit more than the average person, but in the end, I consider getting nearly a half T3 feed (That acts like one...) for only $170/mo a pretty good deal, really.
I think you're disconnecting "consequences" with the actual act.
No, there's really no restriction on yelling "Fire!" in a movie theater- but you'd better be prepared to face the civil liabilities if there really isn't a fire going on that you know of (which are those consequences on your free speech incurs when you do it.) Same goes for Libel and Slander.
You're perfectly free to do whatever you want.
There are just some civil or criminal consequences for some actions and you should be prepared to have someone call you on it if you do them as there are consequences for your misuses of your freedoms in question.
If the source IS available under the GPL, one can correct it and provide a much more capable version, no?
Okay... I found out WHY you haven't got documentation.
Guess what, VIA's got a serious problem on their hands because of those "standard practices".
Considering that S3's claiming they provided the CORE for the IGP "The following VIA Technologies North Bridge chipsets include an integrated S3 Graphics UMA core. Click on the logo for details from VIA's website:", that's a bit conflicting with what you just said.
Moreover, I'm a bit disturbed by the following remark:
Okay, WHO, then, wrote VIA's Direct3D support? Without register level info, how can someone write drivers for WINDOWS for this IGP, hm?
Why any mods saw fit to mod your post as "informative" is beyond me. But then, this IS /. afterall...
Please note the part: "Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside."
Many States do not consider you a Citizen of the State in question unless you meet certain specific criteria, which can and usually includes residency in the State in question for at least one or more years. Sometimes there are other requirements, but in the end, many, myself included are Citizens of the STATE that they reside in which counts BEFORE the US jurisdiction per the Constitution in many cases.
Shame. Easiest answer would be to divulge the programming info for the GPU cores in question. Something AMD managed to do.
I suspect you have a serious problem on your hands though, based on your response regarding S3, which still claims itself as being a VIA "joint venture". Typically, the parents of a joint venture has a bit more pull on the child company than you're implying. While they're autonomous, you would typically have enough pull to at least do things like dump programming info on the IGP lineup.
Time, really, is something VIA doesn't have a lot of on their side at this point. You have Intel breathing down your necks and while the Isiah CPU is an awesome product from the things you've been demoing, it doesn't do any good for you if the IGP you're relying upon in the netbook and baseline ITX board lineup hasn't any support for things like 3D or video acceleration in it's support on Linux. Something Intel's already got lined up- in spades compared to VIA. Power consumption or speed of the CPU doesn't buy you anything if you can't USE them.
Heh... It's funny that you should mention ATI. AMD had to do that, yes. But, you missed mention of the other thing AMD has done- give out technical documentation for most of the chipset's functionality. They're even working on divulging the 3D programming info on their latest offerings right now. Now, I'm not saying that VIA (or you for that matter) are in a position to fix that situation on the UniChrome/Chrome9 components. But to say that AMD's situation is even roughly analogous to yours and that it takes time is a bit disingenious, Harald, because of the other little detail.
I think the GP poster was referring to a design miss/fail on VIA's part.
Without credible driver support (which they still don't have...) they don't get to have their foot in the door on a lot of designs. I suspect that the GP poster was referring to the fact that his company chose something else instead of an EPIA or similar design for set-top boxes because they don't have the right stuff with regards to Linux.
Indeed. I see this as being analogous to that very situation.
This EULA is silly and it's come time to point this out to them by doing something they didn't expect, much like the Debian community did with it back when they had issues with it themselves.
The reality is, the EULA covers the Trademark. The only time this comes into play as a licensing requirement is when someone tries to USE the name "Firefox" in conjunction with a web browser.
End users will just simply USE the product in question. Distributors are a different matter. You don't need END USERS to agree to not misuse their trademark- they don't really count all that much and it's very, very silly to make someone do it other than as a vehicle to FORCE the distributions to package it precisely as the Firefox team want it to be done because it's very annoying for the EULA piece to begin with.
eeproms existed back then. They weren't very robust on erases, compared to flash, but they DID exist- and this doesn't even get into battery backed RAM. Just because flash memory is more ideal for this sort of thing, doesn't mean that you couldn't have done it or there wasn't some sort of tech that could have accomplished it in that day. Prior to the timeframe in question, I'd have to concur with you both, but...
The problem with your thinking on at least this patent is that he patented what would SEEM like SF, but had a real implementation. It wasn't practical enough at the time (one song...but it DID work, so it's not SF, unfortunately...) so he couldn't make the business idea go and the patent lapsed.
There's a few other good ideas like that which have slipped through the cracks over the years.
I have a feeling you need to get a better antenna. Many of the antennas that "worked" with the old Analog service (with snowy reception...) won't get you sufficient signal to work with on the DTV.
1) The signal from the DTV systems is as low as 1/10th the old signal levels. This is because you don't need as much radiated power to accomplish the same results for the market so long as everyone's got the right gear.
2) The signal from the DTV systems has to be at a higher signal strength off of the antenna for it to produce something resembling a picture. It's more of an "all or nothing" prospect with DTV- and you need something like 45% of peak signal strength in from the antenna to get reliable reception.
3) Most stations are in the UHF band, not the VHF band. Regular rabbit-ears will not resolve the signal correctly.
4) Most of what they're flogging for DTV reception in the over the counter antenna space is pure unadulterated RUBBISH that wouldn't work save within 10 or so miles of the towers. Case in fact: I've an OLD Optima antenna that is now marketed by GE. This antenna brings in crystal-clear reception of 3/4ths of the official stations in this market without amplification on my DTV adapter I got with my coupon. The 50dB gain Phillips antenna I bought for that purpose, however, can't bring in jack at my location, amplification and all. The model's flawed as this has been with several units this way.
I'd advise a better antenna, based on a check on the antennaweb site to match your locale with a proper antenna model for the stations you've got. If you are running with "rabbit-ears", the larger the UHF profile for the antenna you have, the better the unit will be. Cheap antennas may not work for your location- you might need a "Silver Sensor", Optima, RCA Flat-Panel patch antenna or similar with an antenna amplifier to pick the signal up a bit.
Yanno... If they keep compliance, who cares?