In the case of these games, NVidia's driver is probably not doing the right things with regards to some older DirectX edges. At some point the API's have to be dropped- problem is they're still advertising something that the game wants if it's there and the implementation in the current drivers is busted for that something. Not knowing all of what those games use out of DirectX, I couldn't say- a little further up towards the top of the conversation, someone mentioned dithering being broken; that shouldn't keep a game from running (just make it render like crap under some specific conditions), but in the end, it could indicate the likelihood of something else not being done right in the driver.
It has less to do with him being a nutcase and more to do with the stuff he was rambling on about being well ahead of it's time. Heh... Some nutcase-you're using the same stuff he's talking about in that flip-flop book to make the post calling him a nutball- it's just not the full monty as it were. Hyper-G was closer, much closer, but they made a mistake in making the reference implementation proprietary, whereas NCSA made the first HTTP server effectively open source and the child of that implementation is the #1 web server right at the moment.
I'd figured as much. Europe mostly uses DVB-T for High-Def. What's frustrating is seeing 30 pound price points for some models of tuner and someone running a loss-leader at 10 over there. It's not that much more difficult or expensive (though it is slightly) to do ATSC in the same manner. It's greed, pure and simple.
Very interesting. That'd be the DVB equivalent. While the ATSC hardware's more expensive, it's not so much so that it raises the prices of a DVD recorder all that much (Something in the neighborhood of $60US...)- which means someone's gouging right at the moment because I don't think I've seen a tuner set-top for anything less than the price points for a DVD recorder.
In reality, it's not too hard of a switch. All one needs is an SDTV/EDTV tuner with an Analog SDTV output adapter built in.
Biggest bar to all of this is the price-point.
Either you go and buy a $150-220 SDTV/EDTV DVD recorder or a $180 tuner unit right at the moment (I went and bought the DVD Recorder option this week because analog NTSC reception in the area just flat sucked canal water- SDTV currently has a few issues for me, but with a little more antenna amplification or a slightly higher gain antenna on what I've got and it'll be perfect for OTA reception. Right now, I don't really need cable/satellite save for maybe getting something like Discovery or the SciFi Channel. I was of mixed opinions until I actually DID it- now I don't intend on going back.
Each channel slot has one HD stream (which CAN be watched in letterboxed mode or in pan-and-scan...) and at least 2-4 SD feeds off of it. In Dallas, the stations have weather channel type local feeds, multiple SD streams with different things showing on them, etc. It's very much like the basic cable offering of old when cable was very young and the big thing. There really is little good reason for resistance other than they think the expense is outweighed by what is possibly out there for demand.
Right now, I don't think there's a single TV set in Wal-Mart in the area that doesn't do Dual Mode operation, namely NTSC Analog and ATSC SD/ED/HDTV. I could be wrong, but I think there's a big push in our market at least. It works better in DTV mode with a crystal clear picture, so long as your reception's adequate (I've had a few drop-outs during a storm and during parts of the day; probably due to lack of signal gain due to a so-so antenna or the amp's just not quite strong enough for my area of town.).
IF someone could come out with a tuner that was cheap enough it might happen whether or not you have only 5% remaining or not; make it compelling enough and there won't be people dragging their heels. What's OTA, if they're doing the same things in the other areas with DTV available, is already compelling enough- it's just the price point's the killer keeping it from happening.
Manufacturers and Retailers don't want to have to deal with warranty situations, but they offer minimal ones because they have to anyhow and offer better ones to try to induce people into buying their stuff over other vendors.
In the end, honoring that warranty costs them on their bottom line. In this day and age, that means everything to a company (Never mind that they're only trying to please the day-traders in most cases or trying to line their pockets if they're not publicly traded, but...), so they will try to pull all kinds of BS to avoid having to honor it.
Well, unfortunately, you're already there. Until some of the ways intellectual "property" laws are re-done so that some of the current insanities with regards to Copyright and Patent are no longer possible, you're going to need that sort of wrangling. You need both Linus AND Richard in the current world.
Her lawyers want a trial to determine whether the RIAA should sue her as the representative of Label X or as the representative Label Y? There is no real doubt that the recordings are still under copyright?
You missed the detail that at least part if not all of the titles the RIAA are suing over are not with Member labels.
This means that they do not have standing to be pressing suit over an infringement of the rights on those files. It means the case might very well get dismissed as RIAA doesn't have standing to press the suit as it is formed in the first place.
...that it's akin to closing the barn door after all your livestock's gone out it.
In order for pretty much all Anti-Virus software to work, you're skimming for signatures patterns in the bytes that leave a tell-tale for the software to "identify" it. It's always lagging by a bit, by the reality of the situation, so it's truly a reactive solution to a problem that needs more of a proactive one.
That's not to say that the software is not useful for detection of attacks (much like an IDS is for networking...) but that to rely on it solely as most people in the Windows world does is really being foolhardy. It is only as good as the signature files are, and a Zero Day or a tough to catch mutator spells the kinds of problems we're seeing right now.
1) Windows security by design is good- unfortunately it's implementation, because the ACLs, etc. are effectively like Swamp Castle, is about as secure as the first three attempts he made at it before the fourth one stayed up. (Vista might be the fourth pass, but it's not looking so good for Microsoft on that count...)
2) There's a LOT of those effectively insecure systems out there on the net because of the Windows Monoculture comprising some 75-95% of the machines that people use out there.
That'd be my take as well. I've got 1 R300 and 1 R500 based card as it stands that I obtained to do verification of game code ports against the "other" GPU in the space. The R500 support & specs got my attention- if they keep doing things this way, they'll keep it.
Another one of the BIG reasons is GPU boosted supercomputing. Lack of good support, open source or otherwise, makes them a never-ran in the workstation/supercomputing markets. And this doesn't even get into the embedded space where Linux is seriously taking off. Everyone keeps worrying about the desktop and "end-users"- but the bulk of the money in the computer industry has NOTHING to do with the desktop. It ends up coming along as a result of the other spaces making it a no-brainer to just do the right thing anyhow.
Interesting. R500 forward would be a major improvement, really. While I'd like to have R300/R400 and better R200 info, I'll take what I can actually GET from someone giving it like that.
The 9600 is an R300 chip. They don't plan on cutting R300 support for a while yet.
Otherwise, your observations are largely dead-on. Unless the rumblings of ATI stepping up the pace with helping the Open Source community do their own drivers or a jointly developed driver (we can only hope...) eventually, they'll drop support for your chip. Having said this, the NVidia chip is only a better supported version of the same problem really.
Actually, it's the RIAA labels doing it. SoundExchange charges royalties on behalf of RIAA members and others- it is the creation of RIAA, in reality. Now, think about it... They largely have control over the media markets through the means and connections they already have with Radio- but don't have any positive control over anything in the case of web radio. Very probably never will because the bar to entry is very shallow. Sure it kind of scares the ClearChannel's of the world, but in the end, it's just another format for them to step into. In the end, they can compete decently well in that space- but there's still no way to control you or I stepping up to the plate and putting out stuff that's got NOTHING to do with the labels. Classical. Renaissance. Celtic. And, so forth.
RIAA's members and RIAA themselves do not like that thought at all.
They exist right at the moment to strip mine what we call culture right at the moment. In order for them to maximize profits (and make the Daytraders happy...) they need to have nearly absolute control on what comes out as usable music, etc. so that they can extract every dollar they can out of us. Well, so long as people don't realize they're getting short-changed by these jokers.
Web Radio was helping people find music that the big media conglomerates (You had it right- just the wrong conglomerates) like Sony BMG, Warner, etc. just have no interest in backing and producing content for- EVER. They don't want that. Which is why we're here now, discussing this.
The players involved with the compulsory licensing should not be involved in setting the pricing, etc.
Someone that doesn't ever touch content covered by the licensing should not have to pay for it- if they've got deals with all the performers that are being given "airtime" online, they shouldn't have to pay and if they break the rules, then they should pay a dear price for that act of infringement.
Considering that it's at least slightly harder to collect MP3's of new Renaissance Festival and Celtic music (It's doable, because it had to be to be able to listen to the stream in the first place...) because the media moguls have determined that this style of music isn't available through them- YES. The same can be said of many of the web radio stations.
This isn't about someone picking and choosing the "perfect" mix of MP3's as you put it. It's about being able to listen to things that the radio stations and labels just won't touch because they're not strip-mining that part of culture yet or at all. And that's what this whole rate hike is about.
It's not about getting the artists their fair share. It's about killing off a media form that the current players don't control, and largely can't control. And I question WHY someone who is involved with the labels setting the rate for "compulsory licensing"- isn't that kind of bass-ackwards? Shouldn't an independent party be the one setting that rate?
The biggest problem with that line of reasoning is that most of the people in question don't even have access to that sort of stuff- nor could they.
It's one thing if you're going for a job that actually needs access to Secret or Top Secret classified data. These people don't- so why even GO there in the first place?
It's not that it's a viable legal theory- it's how the media corporations actually think these days. If you're not monetizing it it's fair game. If it's not theirs and they can steal it however they can, they will. Yes, the media companies are paranoid about the infringement of other people's IP, but if they can't get caught or the content creator is not in a position to defend themselves because of funds... You can see it in their actions.
"Intellectual" Property is a rich man's game. Copyrights are less so than Patents, but in the end, they, being all three forms of "protected" intellectual property, are only worth what you're able to field in the form of a legal defense/offense on someone to protect it.
Theo and Company happen to be VERY obnoxious at times. This would be one of them.
They were guilty of the very thing they're accusing the Linux crowd of back a while back and the Linux crowd handled it rather nicely and helpfully, but Theo went ballistic and basically got all bent out of shape indicating that they weren't really violating the GPL licensing on a kernel driver (they were, but...) and so forth.
Now, we see a percieved violation being "observed" by Theo and Company and in reality, the people in the discussion thread all bent out of shape over it weren't paying close attention. The original author did the change- which is legit all the way around.
This isn't about dividing BSD and Linux. This is about Theo and some of the OpenBSD crowd being a little more mouthy than usual and simply going off half-cocked.
Slashdot Mirror
In the case of these games, NVidia's driver is probably not doing the right things with regards to some older DirectX edges. At some point the API's
have to be dropped- problem is they're still advertising something that the game wants if it's there and the implementation in the current drivers
is busted for that something. Not knowing all of what those games use out of DirectX, I couldn't say- a little further up towards the top of the
conversation, someone mentioned dithering being broken; that shouldn't keep a game from running (just make it render like crap under some specific
conditions), but in the end, it could indicate the likelihood of something else not being done right in the driver.
It has less to do with him being a nutcase and more to do with the stuff he was rambling on about
being well ahead of it's time. Heh... Some nutcase-you're using the same stuff he's talking about
in that flip-flop book to make the post calling him a nutball- it's just not the full monty as it
were. Hyper-G was closer, much closer, but they made a mistake in making the reference implementation
proprietary, whereas NCSA made the first HTTP server effectively open source and the child of that
implementation is the #1 web server right at the moment.
Heh... As if it were that simple. Bankruptcy doesn't wash away Lanham Act violations... They'll go after execs and principals if
needs be for those.
I'd figured as much. Europe mostly uses DVB-T for High-Def. What's frustrating is seeing 30 pound price points for some models of tuner and someone running a loss-leader at 10 over there. It's not that much more difficult or expensive (though it is slightly) to do ATSC in the same manner. It's greed, pure and simple.
Why would you think there'd be ANY statement from them- owning up to something
like this is very bad for their position at this point in time.
You probably already GOT them.
There's a thread above you that mentions some of how to possibly check for changes.
I suspect any of the updating OSes that they're "supporting" got updates.
Very interesting. That'd be the DVB equivalent. While the ATSC hardware's more expensive, it's not so much so that it raises the prices of a DVD recorder all that much (Something in the neighborhood of $60US...)- which means someone's gouging right at the moment because I don't think I've seen a tuner set-top for anything less than the price points for a DVD recorder.
In reality, it's not too hard of a switch. All one needs is an SDTV/EDTV tuner with an Analog SDTV output adapter built in.
Biggest bar to all of this is the price-point.
Either you go and buy a $150-220 SDTV/EDTV DVD recorder or a $180 tuner unit right at the moment (I went and bought the DVD
Recorder option this week because analog NTSC reception in the area just flat sucked canal water- SDTV currently has a few
issues for me, but with a little more antenna amplification or a slightly higher gain antenna on what I've got and it'll be
perfect for OTA reception. Right now, I don't really need cable/satellite save for maybe getting something
like Discovery or the SciFi Channel. I was of mixed opinions until I actually DID it- now I don't intend on going back.
Each channel slot has one HD stream (which CAN be watched in letterboxed mode or in pan-and-scan...) and at least 2-4 SD feeds
off of it. In Dallas, the stations have weather channel type local feeds, multiple SD streams with different things showing
on them, etc. It's very much like the basic cable offering of old when cable was very young and the big thing. There really
is little good reason for resistance other than they think the expense is outweighed by what is possibly out there for demand.
Right now, I don't think there's a single TV set in Wal-Mart in the area that doesn't do Dual Mode operation, namely NTSC Analog
and ATSC SD/ED/HDTV. I could be wrong, but I think there's a big push in our market at least. It works better in DTV mode with
a crystal clear picture, so long as your reception's adequate (I've had a few drop-outs during a storm and during parts of the
day; probably due to lack of signal gain due to a so-so antenna or the amp's just not quite strong enough for my area of town.).
IF someone could come out with a tuner that was cheap enough it might happen whether or not you have only 5% remaining or not;
make it compelling enough and there won't be people dragging their heels. What's OTA, if they're doing the same things in the
other areas with DTV available, is already compelling enough- it's just the price point's the killer keeping it from happening.
They'd still try to run that one up the flagpole.
Manufacturers and Retailers don't want to have to deal with warranty situations, but they offer
minimal ones because they have to anyhow and offer better ones to try to induce people into buying
their stuff over other vendors.
In the end, honoring that warranty costs them on their bottom line. In this day and age, that
means everything to a company (Never mind that they're only trying to please the day-traders in
most cases or trying to line their pockets if they're not publicly traded, but...), so they will
try to pull all kinds of BS to avoid having to honor it.
Well, unfortunately, you're already there. Until some of the ways intellectual "property" laws are re-done so that
some of the current insanities with regards to Copyright and Patent are no longer possible, you're going to need
that sort of wrangling. You need both Linus AND Richard in the current world.
You missed the detail that at least part if not all of the titles the RIAA are suing over are not with Member labels.
This means that they do not have standing to be pressing suit over an infringement of the rights on those files.
It means the case might very well get dismissed as RIAA doesn't have standing to press the suit as it is formed in the first place.
...that it's akin to closing the barn door after all your livestock's gone out it.
In order for pretty much all Anti-Virus software to work, you're skimming for signatures patterns in the bytes
that leave a tell-tale for the software to "identify" it. It's always lagging by a bit, by the reality of the situation, so
it's truly a reactive solution to a problem that needs more of a proactive one.
That's not to say that the software is not useful for detection of attacks (much like an IDS is for networking...) but that
to rely on it solely as most people in the Windows world does is really being foolhardy. It is only as good as the signature
files are, and a Zero Day or a tough to catch mutator spells the kinds of problems we're seeing right now.
It's a combination of two factors, really.
1) Windows security by design is good- unfortunately it's implementation, because the ACLs, etc. are effectively like Swamp Castle, is about as secure as the first three attempts he made at it before the fourth one stayed up. (Vista might be the fourth pass, but it's not looking so good for Microsoft on that count...)
2) There's a LOT of those effectively insecure systems out there on the net because of the Windows Monoculture comprising some 75-95% of the machines that people use out there.
That'd be my take as well. I've got 1 R300 and 1 R500 based card as it stands that I obtained to do verification of game code ports against the "other" GPU in the space. The R500 support & specs got my attention- if they keep doing things this way, they'll keep it.
Another one of the BIG reasons is GPU boosted supercomputing. Lack of good support, open source or otherwise,
makes them a never-ran in the workstation/supercomputing markets. And this doesn't even get into the embedded
space where Linux is seriously taking off. Everyone keeps worrying about the desktop and "end-users"- but the
bulk of the money in the computer industry has NOTHING to do with the desktop. It ends up coming along as a
result of the other spaces making it a no-brainer to just do the right thing anyhow.
Interesting. R500 forward would be a major improvement, really. While I'd like to have R300/R400 and better R200 info, I'll take what I can actually GET from someone giving it like that.
The 9600 is an R300 chip. They don't plan on cutting R300 support for a while yet.
Otherwise, your observations are largely dead-on. Unless the rumblings of ATI stepping
up the pace with helping the Open Source community do their own drivers or a jointly
developed driver (we can only hope...) eventually, they'll drop support for your chip.
Having said this, the NVidia chip is only a better supported version of the same problem
really.
Well the settings manager happens to be a Qt app if that matters...
I'm glad they woke up- but it may be a bit late unless the rumblings of turning up the volume on the open source side
of things on their end are true.
Actually, it's the RIAA labels doing it. SoundExchange charges royalties on behalf of RIAA members and others- it is
the creation of RIAA, in reality. Now, think about it... They largely have control over the media markets through
the means and connections they already have with Radio- but don't have any positive control over anything in the
case of web radio. Very probably never will because the bar to entry is very shallow. Sure it kind of scares the
ClearChannel's of the world, but in the end, it's just another format for them to step into. In the end, they can
compete decently well in that space- but there's still no way to control you or I stepping up to the plate and putting
out stuff that's got NOTHING to do with the labels. Classical. Renaissance. Celtic. And, so forth.
RIAA's members and RIAA themselves do not like that thought at all.
They exist right at the moment to strip mine what we call culture right at the moment. In order for them to maximize
profits (and make the Daytraders happy...) they need to have nearly absolute control on what comes out as usable
music, etc. so that they can extract every dollar they can out of us. Well, so long as people don't realize they're
getting short-changed by these jokers.
Web Radio was helping people find music that the big media conglomerates (You had it right- just the wrong conglomerates)
like Sony BMG, Warner, etc. just have no interest in backing and producing content for- EVER. They don't want that.
Which is why we're here now, discussing this.
The players involved with the compulsory licensing should not be involved in setting the pricing, etc.
Someone that doesn't ever touch content covered by the licensing should not have to pay for it- if they've
got deals with all the performers that are being given "airtime" online, they shouldn't have to pay and if
they break the rules, then they should pay a dear price for that act of infringement.
But, that's not what is going on, now is it?
Considering that it's at least slightly harder to collect MP3's of new Renaissance Festival
and Celtic music (It's doable, because it had to be to be able to listen to the stream in
the first place...) because the media moguls have determined that this style of music isn't
available through them- YES. The same can be said of many of the web radio stations.
This isn't about someone picking and choosing the "perfect" mix of MP3's as you put it. It's about
being able to listen to things that the radio stations and labels just won't touch because they're
not strip-mining that part of culture yet or at all. And that's what this whole rate hike is about.
It's not about getting the artists their fair share. It's about killing off a media form that the
current players don't control, and largely can't control. And I question WHY someone who is involved
with the labels setting the rate for "compulsory licensing"- isn't that kind of bass-ackwards? Shouldn't
an independent party be the one setting that rate?
The biggest problem with that line of reasoning is that most of the people in question don't even have access to that sort of stuff- nor could they.
It's one thing if you're going for a job that actually needs access to Secret or Top Secret classified data. These people don't- so why even GO there in the first place?
It's not that it's a viable legal theory- it's how the media corporations actually think these days. If you're not monetizing it it's fair game. If it's not theirs and they can steal it however they can, they will. Yes, the media companies are paranoid about the infringement of other people's IP, but if they can't get caught or the content creator is not in a position to defend themselves because of funds... You can see it in their actions.
"Intellectual" Property is a rich man's game. Copyrights are less so than Patents, but in the end, they, being all three forms of "protected" intellectual property, are only worth what you're able to field in the form of a legal defense/offense on someone to protect it.
Funny that, it looks like he chose the fourth one already...
Theo and Company happen to be VERY obnoxious at times. This would be one of them.
They were guilty of the very thing they're accusing the Linux crowd of back a while
back and the Linux crowd handled it rather nicely and helpfully, but Theo went ballistic
and basically got all bent out of shape indicating that they weren't really violating
the GPL licensing on a kernel driver (they were, but...) and so forth.
Now, we see a percieved violation being "observed" by Theo and Company
and in reality, the people in the discussion thread all bent out of shape over it weren't
paying close attention. The original author did the change- which is legit all the way
around.
This isn't about dividing BSD and Linux. This is about Theo and some of the OpenBSD
crowd being a little more mouthy than usual and simply going off half-cocked.
Nothing new here- move along.