I wonder if Codec2 can find a niche there too, although it is so low bitrate that your IP headers are going to be larger than your payload at 20ms or even 40ms!
David recently was funded by someone anonymous to increase the codec quality for VoIP. He made a 3200 bit per second version of the codec. That seems to be the maximum quality for now - he couldn't work out a way to improve the codec with more bits.
This is still a rather small payload for an IP packet, unless you are trunking multiple calls in the same packet. It would sound really nice on radio.
Well, sure, stories often use tried-and-tested formulae. Which would be a problem if we had story patents. But I thought this was the best answer to the question, and it was one I had discussed just weeks before at a Free Software conference.
I don't particularly like that we sometimes get identified with a "darker element". So, I sometimes bring that up just to make it clear that the people who redistribute feature films illegaly, and the people who do nasty things to servers on the internet, are not us.
You've been on this horse for years now, and maybe you have a handful of friends who care about it but nobody else does.
I have told you before that I don't claim to have invented the term "open source". This was used before to refer to a form international intelligence gathering, and on a few rare occassions to refer to source code being available. What I did was announce the "Open Source" that we now think of when we hear those words. And I made the rules that apply to that form of "Open Source" most of a year before we thought to call it that.
And nothing that you can do will change that, so go ahead and publicize your silly argument. I don't care, and nor does anyone of consequence that I know of.
You can build/steal/reverse engineer/replicate/copy ABME in your basement all you want. You just can't sell it.
Well, we could use some people who really did this. But they haven't. They have figured out, partially, how to edit pieces out of an AMBE bitstream and to snip them back together, to play them on the air. This is really just finding the frame boundaries. As far as I am aware, they have not discovered any knowledge of the compression algorithm. Of course, one can mostly figure out what DVSI is doing from their patents and papers, but knowing the bitstream would be useful.
None of the Codec2 developers will look at AMBE because they don't want to have any legal issues attached to Codec2. So, someone else has to do this.
AMBE from DVSI is the proprietary codec used in D*STAR and APCO Project 25. g.729a runs at 8192 bits per second and the other variants are around that bandwidth too. Codec2 can get down to 1200 and probably lower eventually, and AMBE can do 2400.
There's a difference between newbie-dumb and having a low barrier-of-entry, low learning-curve, and yet having depth for those who wish to learn how to use it.
I was surprised by how much was configurable in GNOME3 although that seems to be its main criticism. Gnome-shell seems to be easy to extend and there are a lot of extensions already. But not all of the knobs are there, and there are some obvious ease-of-use problems that effect everyone. They'll get past that.
I am mostly evangelizing about the need at this point. There are some communities that actually look at what users want and try to make it. Mozilla might be the best we have right now. Mostly we need more of them, doing different things.
Well, just think about what the future will be if we all go on the way you are right now. We will remain a separate community from most computer users. Most hardware will be locked-down into operating systems you don't like, and your options to run Free Software will diminish. We'll get more law like DMCA that restricts what we can do with Free Software. Software patents will be more of a problem, because we won't have any user sympathy to help us in beating them.
So, I think you will be paid back for helping those folks in that they will help Free Software. It may be that you can't develop the empathy, but I hope others will.
I train engineers in companies to perform the due diligence themselves in partnership with legal but with the engineers doing most of the work. But I can't help your company if bringing the use of Open Source to management's attention would be a problem. Many companies these days have accepted the reality that they entirely depend on Open Source for their operations.
Apache licensing is good if you want other companies to use your stuff and don't care if they contribute back their modifications or not. In general you can feel OK about using it if you've been paid for the work. In general, I apply GPL to work I have not been paid for. I also run some dual-licensiing business that would not work at all wiithout the GPL. From that perspective, GPL is more business-friendly rather than less. It separates the folks who want to pay by sharing code from the foks who want to pay with money. More sharing, more payment, fewer people who just take and return nothing.
It entered the chimney because it was pining for the fjords.
It's not pinin,' it's passed on! This pigeon is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late pigeon! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-PIGEON!
Because your research is based upon a sample of only one site, you are subject to all sorts of issues that simply might not exist for a larger sample. It might be difficult to isolate them..
Want a useful experiment? Take one of the old routers and install OpenWRT on it. See if it works better.
If you insist on waiting for someone else to train you, or for a class to be available, you have a problem. If you can pick up a book and self-train, you don't have a problem.
Because everything below 30 MHz (and sometimes above) can go around the whole world, which is way too long, and because the band is so narrow that it might only support one customer. My ATT U-Verse DSL, with two pairs, uses more bandwidth than all of the frequencies below 30 MHz.
It would be ad-hominem ("about the man"), but not the Ad-Hominem Fallacy if you demonstrated his previous perfidiousness. There's an interesting paper regarding when ad-hominem arguments are not fallacious here.
Every teacher individually? Textbooks must teach to the content of the abitur and the standards being established by the Bologna Process. So, I guess the curricula are well defined. But I'm still surprised that this decision would be left to every teacher individually.
5000 is a good size run for technical titles in the U.S. The publisher would be satisfied if they sold that many. I don't think most technical authors expect to support themselves by writing. They write to establish their credibility.
My book series wasn't intended to be used as textbooks in school, but as references for professionals. But we published 24 of them, and if Microsoft tried to interfere we didn't notice. All 24 titles are Open Source.
I think this Finnish group needs someone who is an insider on textbook selection committees to advise them. The last thing these committees want is to embarrass themselves by being seen to recommend a work that was produced in three days. They would lose their credibility, regardless of the quality of the work.
Sometimes, it isn't that the wold is against us. It's us that are incapable of working with the world.
We wrote perhaps a 9 months' work in three days and you think publishers will mock this in an effective way?
To establish my credibility, I have published 24 titles that are Open Source as the series editor of the book series that is named after me. I got a reputable publisher to take the series on my terms, and to use the Open Source license I recommended. All but one of these titles made money even though everyone is free to copy them.
It is easy for people in the Open Source community to not understand how people who are not in the community perceive your team and your work. The publisher won't have to work very hard to mock your work, because most people who aren't associated with Open Source just won't see a three-day sprint as producing the sort of quality work that they would like to have taught to their children.
Those same folks won't have gotten a good impression from the crowdsourcing failure. You see yourself as victim of behind-the-times legislation. They see you as naive or worse.
I think you need someone on your team who understands public relations and can empathize with the folks you consider enemies (some of whom are, and some of whom you just don't understand well enough to work with them). You won't win without that sort of person.
Isn't one of open source's strong points is that things only get better over time with more people checking for errors and polishing the product?
Absolutely.
And I don't object to having a three-day sprint to do the work that they did. But almost the entire announcement is about its being written in 3 days, and I do object to the announcement being written that way.
Next time, I think there should be more thought about what they're trying to sell to their country, what their opponents will say and how to deal with that, and how they can promote that this is a continuing effort.
If you want Open Textbooks, and there are many reasons to want them, you should not start by announcing to the world that you wrote the complete thing in a three day sprint. That's just handing a line to the commercial publishers to use in opposing such works.
If you are not going to do everything that a commercial publisher and their authors would do to ensure the quality of the work, please don't tell the world about it. Just put the work up for people to fix, and let them announce it when they're satisfied with it.
Broadcast studios always have double windows, but the panes are at an angle to each other. Placing them parallel to each other makes them more likely to resonate with each other.
You can see from something else I wrote that I do value spokespeople who stay on message. I don't kid myself that I can expect that sort of maturity out of some of our best-known spokespeople, though.
Slashdot Mirror
David recently was funded by someone anonymous to increase the codec quality for VoIP. He made a 3200 bit per second version of the codec. That seems to be the maximum quality for now - he couldn't work out a way to improve the codec with more bits.
This is still a rather small payload for an IP packet, unless you are trunking multiple calls in the same packet. It would sound really nice on radio.
Well, sure, stories often use tried-and-tested formulae. Which would be a problem if we had story patents. But I thought this was the best answer to the question, and it was one I had discussed just weeks before at a Free Software conference.
I don't particularly like that we sometimes get identified with a "darker element". So, I sometimes bring that up just to make it clear that the people who redistribute feature films illegaly, and the people who do nasty things to servers on the internet, are not us.
Hi "drinkypoo".
You've been on this horse for years now, and maybe you have a handful of friends who care about it but nobody else does.
I have told you before that I don't claim to have invented the term "open source". This was used before to refer to a form international intelligence gathering, and on a few rare occassions to refer to source code being available. What I did was announce the "Open Source" that we now think of when we hear those words. And I made the rules that apply to that form of "Open Source" most of a year before we thought to call it that.
And nothing that you can do will change that, so go ahead and publicize your silly argument. I don't care, and nor does anyone of consequence that I know of.
Well, we could use some people who really did this. But they haven't. They have figured out, partially, how to edit pieces out of an AMBE bitstream and to snip them back together, to play them on the air. This is really just finding the frame boundaries. As far as I am aware, they have not discovered any knowledge of the compression algorithm. Of course, one can mostly figure out what DVSI is doing from their patents and papers, but knowing the bitstream would be useful.
None of the Codec2 developers will look at AMBE because they don't want to have any legal issues attached to Codec2. So, someone else has to do this.
I was just joking about the Federal Agents.... oops, too late. :-)
AMBE from DVSI is the proprietary codec used in D*STAR and APCO Project 25. g.729a runs at 8192 bits per second and the other variants are around that bandwidth too. Codec2 can get down to 1200 and probably lower eventually, and AMBE can do 2400.
There's a difference between newbie-dumb and having a low barrier-of-entry, low learning-curve, and yet having depth for those who wish to learn how to use it.
I was surprised by how much was configurable in GNOME3 although that seems to be its main criticism. Gnome-shell seems to be easy to extend and there are a lot of extensions already. But not all of the knobs are there, and there are some obvious ease-of-use problems that effect everyone. They'll get past that.
I am mostly evangelizing about the need at this point. There are some communities that actually look at what users want and try to make it. Mozilla might be the best we have right now. Mostly we need more of them, doing different things.
Well, just think about what the future will be if we all go on the way you are right now. We will remain a separate community from most computer users. Most hardware will be locked-down into operating systems you don't like, and your options to run Free Software will diminish. We'll get more law like DMCA that restricts what we can do with Free Software. Software patents will be more of a problem, because we won't have any user sympathy to help us in beating them.
So, I think you will be paid back for helping those folks in that they will help Free Software. It may be that you can't develop the empathy, but I hope others will.
Thanks
Bruce
Apache licensing is good if you want other companies to use your stuff and don't care if they contribute back their modifications or not. In general you can feel OK about using it if you've been paid for the work. In general, I apply GPL to work I have not been paid for. I also run some dual-licensiing business that would not work at all wiithout the GPL. From that perspective, GPL is more business-friendly rather than less. It separates the folks who want to pay by sharing code from the foks who want to pay with money. More sharing, more payment, fewer people who just take and return nothing.
It entered the chimney because it was pining for the fjords.
It's not pinin,' it's passed on! This pigeon is no more! It has ceased to be! It's expired and gone to meet its maker! This is a late pigeon! It's a stiff! Bereft of life, it rests in peace! If you hadn't nailed him to the perch he would be pushing up the daisies! Its metabolical processes are of interest only to historians! It's hopped the twig! It's shuffled off this mortal coil! It's run down the curtain and joined the choir invisible! This.... is an EX-PIGEON!
Want a useful experiment? Take one of the old routers and install OpenWRT on it. See if it works better.
If you insist on waiting for someone else to train you, or for a class to be available, you have a problem. If you can pick up a book and self-train, you don't have a problem.
Because everything below 30 MHz (and sometimes above) can go around the whole world, which is way too long, and because the band is so narrow that it might only support one customer. My ATT U-Verse DSL, with two pairs, uses more bandwidth than all of the frequencies below 30 MHz.
I've worked in Finland and taught in another Shengen country. Go away troll.
It would be ad-hominem ("about the man"), but not the Ad-Hominem Fallacy if you demonstrated his previous perfidiousness. There's an interesting paper regarding when ad-hominem arguments are not fallacious here.
He's not a particularly reliable source. Move along, no news here.
Every teacher individually? Textbooks must teach to the content of the abitur and the standards being established by the Bologna Process. So, I guess the curricula are well defined. But I'm still surprised that this decision would be left to every teacher individually.
5000 is a good size run for technical titles in the U.S. The publisher would be satisfied if they sold that many. I don't think most technical authors expect to support themselves by writing. They write to establish their credibility.
I think this Finnish group needs someone who is an insider on textbook selection committees to advise them. The last thing these committees want is to embarrass themselves by being seen to recommend a work that was produced in three days. They would lose their credibility, regardless of the quality of the work.
Sometimes, it isn't that the wold is against us. It's us that are incapable of working with the world.
To establish my credibility, I have published 24 titles that are Open Source as the series editor of the book series that is named after me. I got a reputable publisher to take the series on my terms, and to use the Open Source license I recommended. All but one of these titles made money even though everyone is free to copy them.
It is easy for people in the Open Source community to not understand how people who are not in the community perceive your team and your work. The publisher won't have to work very hard to mock your work, because most people who aren't associated with Open Source just won't see a three-day sprint as producing the sort of quality work that they would like to have taught to their children.
Those same folks won't have gotten a good impression from the crowdsourcing failure. You see yourself as victim of behind-the-times legislation. They see you as naive or worse.
I think you need someone on your team who understands public relations and can empathize with the folks you consider enemies (some of whom are, and some of whom you just don't understand well enough to work with them). You won't win without that sort of person.
Absolutely.
And I don't object to having a three-day sprint to do the work that they did. But almost the entire announcement is about its being written in 3 days, and I do object to the announcement being written that way.
Next time, I think there should be more thought about what they're trying to sell to their country, what their opponents will say and how to deal with that, and how they can promote that this is a continuing effort.
If you are not going to do everything that a commercial publisher and their authors would do to ensure the quality of the work, please don't tell the world about it. Just put the work up for people to fix, and let them announce it when they're satisfied with it.
Broadcast studios always have double windows, but the panes are at an angle to each other. Placing them parallel to each other makes them more likely to resonate with each other.
You can see from something else I wrote that I do value spokespeople who stay on message. I don't kid myself that I can expect that sort of maturity out of some of our best-known spokespeople, though.