Considering some of the low power hardware that NetBSD has been ported to, I am sure that a top of the line IBM super computer should have no trouble handling it:)
I think the problem for the people making the DOOM movie was that they didn't want to use the h-word (hell) because of the influence of the various religious groups who would have complained (either about the depiction of hell at all or the depiction of hell in that way)
What are the players like Google who are facing the prospect of having to pay extra to get "full speed" doing about this? Why aren't they using their resources to counter ISP FUD over this issue?
QoS is fine and ISPs should be allowed to apply QoS to their traffic to give priority to, say, VoIP over, say, BitTorrent. Taking away the rights of ISPs to apply QoS
The 2 issues that the "anti-net neutrality" crowd should be focusing on are: 1.When ISPs give preferential treatment to, say, CableCo VoIP over, say, Vonage. Or give preferential treatment to a customer who pays extra for the privilege. and 2.When ISPs deliberatly limit the speeds of certain data (based on network protocols, port numbers, source and destination address or whatever else) so that that data can never go at the full speed of whatever broadband link you have.
Regardless of your attitude towards people who download copies of music without the copyright holders permission, I don't know of too many people here who would argue that its OK to SELL copies of music without the copyright holders permission. This is where the RIAA should be focusing their time.
In order of how dangerous I consider them 1.Phishing, identity theft and the like (e.g. credit card numbers being stolen) 2.Fraud (for example fraudulent ebay auctions, Nigerian spam emails, "you have won a lottery you never actually entered" etc) 3.Viruses and malware (including the zombie bots that make up DDOS and spam botnets) 4.Spyware and privacy violations (including the stuff that tracks every website you visit and sends that information off to some scum marketing agency to sell to the highest bidder) 5.People who aren't who they say they are (i.e. "internet stranger danger" in general, going to meet someone you have only ever known online without taking steps to make sure you are safe etc)
These are the real Dangers, not "Online Bullying" or whatever crap TFA is talking about (but the senate resolution it talks about is really an attempt to say to the voters about to vote in the 2008 election "we DO care about making the internet safe for your kids, does the other guy care?")
I personally do not believe in using censor ware or controls or monitoring. If I had kids, I would just set some ground rules like "don't post our home address or phone number online", "don't touch the parents credit cards", "don't go and meet someone in the real world who you have only met online unless a parent or responsible adult is there to make sure its safe" and so on. Give them their own PC with good anti-virus and anti-spyware and their own email address and let them experience the great uncontrolled mass of information and entertainment that is The Internet.
I have been using the internet since the days when "the internet" meant dialing up to a computer with a terminal program and getting a text screen and I don't buy into all the "the internet is dangerous and must be controlled/regulated" crap.
2 problems with that: 1.The government in whatever country is doing the censoring will just stop these (arrest people bringing them into the country for example) also 2.The government in countries involved in the supply of the "anti-censorship tech" might decide to stop it. For example, a while back there was an anti-censorship group that wanted to send balloons filled with radios over the North Korean border so that the North Koreans might actually get something vaguely resembling information (instead of the propaganda they get now) but the South Korean government stopped them from doing it.
The smaller you make the binary blobs, the easier it is for other people to clean-room reverse engineer and clone said binary blobs (as has been done for some of the WiFi cards with binary blobs)
If you are looking for a static analysis tool, check out PREFast. If your code is able to be compiled with Visual C++ 2005, PREFast can analyze it and find potential issues in your code. Plus, its 100% free (if you download the latest platform SDK and use the compiler that is included with that SDK)
linux apps can't compete with PS3 licensed games. In order to run any linux software you need to install the PS3 otheros loader first. No games company is going to want to cut down the market by forcing people to install that loader.
I suspect the real desire is to stop things like Second Life (which competes directly with Sony's new online virtual world offering) being ported to PS3 linux. The people who are likely to use things like Second Life are more likely to have the know-how to install the otheros loader and such.
I wonder if it would be possible to produce a driver that didnt use the patented features (and as such presumably didnt support that relies on the patent) but still implemented the rest of the functionality of the GPU. For example, if nvidia has licensed the S3TC patent, they could remove the S3TC code from the "open source" driver.
Or they could go half way by taking all the code that they don't own and all the code that relies on 3rd party patents where the patent holder has forbidden them from releasing source and put those into the "binary blobs" (like they have now) and make the rest of the code (which they own the copyright to and which is not covered by whatever 3rd party patents they have licensed) available (in much the same way at least one vendor of WiFi cards has put only the bare minimum code that has to remain closed for FCC certification into a binary blob and made the rest of the code open source)
What its about is ISPs faced with the rapid growth of sites like YouTube which their network just cant handle.
They have 3 options: 1.They can increase their prices so that they can afford to expand their network so it can handle the increased amount of multimedia traffic. 2.They can introduce limits on how much you can download so that your $x per month only includes 10GB of transfers or 5GB of transfers or whatever. or 3.They can throttle access to the high bandwidth multimedia sites unless those sites are willing to pay money to the ISP to cover the fact that the ISPs network cant handle the traffic.
The ISPs don't want to pick option 1 because they would loose customers to other ISPs who didnt pick option 1 (or with networks that aren't yet congested enough for the ISP to need to pick an option) They don't want to pick option 2 either because most consumers don't have a clue how much bandwidth they are using or how much data they are transferring (unlike, say, phone calls where costs are based on how long you are on the phone which is an easy thing to measure). So if ISPs start setting limits, they would loose customers who would think "I don't want to be hit with a bill at the end of the month and I don't have a clue how much I am downloading so I will find an ISP that has no such restrictions" So, ISPs faced with increasingly congested networks want to be able to throttle back speeds to known high bandwidth sites. That or have the site pay up to get better treatment.
Anyone who says net neutrality is about QoS or common carrier or anything else is wrong. The issue at stake here is simply that ISPs want to throttle high bandwidth sites and protocols unless they are paid money by the owners of those sites.
Also, its aimed at making it harder for people (in, say, a class action lawsuit) to point and say "the apple service manual clearly lists a fix for caused by " therefore apple is clearly aware of and should give us compensation/replacement hardware/a free fix/whatever
Get an XBOX 360 and you can set Family Settings to restrict that stuff (I don't know if it actually has time lockouts but it certainly has content lockouts)
There is nothing in the GPL (v2 or v3) stopping Tivo from adding code to the proprietary media recorders and codecs (that handle the DRM stuff) so that such applications will refuse to run if the OS has been tampered with in ways Tivo does not like.
Likely Tivo will continue using the linux kernel as it does now (since the kernel wont go to GPLv3). Any userland it is using it will replace with other (not GPL) stuff or keep using the old GPLv2 version.
Products which remove existing DRM are illegal under the DMCA. Hence, the DVDCCA can sue anyone decrypting DVDs without permission (or more to the point, making software that decrypts DVDs). However, a DRM free Tivo would not violate the DMCA unless it contained a HDMI input with HDCP (in which case decrypting the HDCP output and storing the result in an unencrypted form would be a DMCA violation) it removed/ignored Macrovision from an analog video stream (again a DMCA violation) or it contained a cable/sattelite decoder such as CableCard (in which case decrypting the encrypted signals and storing them in an unencrypted form would be a DMCA violation).
As of yet, there is nothing in US law or any of the various specifications (such as ATSC/NTSC) requiring that a video capture device store its content in an encrypted form (laws like that have been drafted before IIRC but none have actually passed through congress)
So, a Tivo that does not support HDCP, cable/sattelite TV or macrovision ignoring/removal would not be illegal under current US law. Which means the MPAA would have nothing they can sue Tivo for (note IANAL so I may be unaware of a law that DRM free Tivo would be in violation of)
Is there any actual law that requires Tivo to implement DRM on its PVRs? Would not doing so break any laws? (I am referring to a normal Tivo, not one with CableCard or other pay TV stuff in there)
How is Tivo different from a VCR? (which, IIRC, is legal under the Betamax decision)
What the industry really needs is a memory card standard that is totally open with absolutely no fees required to produce memory cards, card readers or software for it (unlike SD where you need to pay license fees). Or failing that, develop a standard where you only need to pay license frees if you are producing the physical hardware (i.e. the memory card or socket) and where the software is totally open. Motorola for example were caught between a rock and a hard place a while back because they had released a phone with a driver for the included SD slot built into the linux kernel instead of being a module and were stuck between "GPL violation" and "violating the SD association NDAs" (at the time they had to choose "GPL violation". It was all cleared up when the SD card people were convinced to release the "simplified specs" and Motorola could release the code in question)
I notice that windows always seems to hang (with very little response) just after I log in whilst all the startup programs start up (SeaMonkey quick launch, Miranda IM, AVG Anti-virus etc). Once the apps load, it becomes responsive again pretty quickly. Oh and I have a nice beefy machine so I don't think its my specs (unless its a case of too many programs all trying to access the hard drive at once:)
Slashdot Mirror
Considering some of the low power hardware that NetBSD has been ported to, I am sure that a top of the line IBM super computer should have no trouble handling it :)
I think the problem for the people making the DOOM movie was that they didn't want to use the h-word (hell) because of the influence of the various religious groups who would have complained (either about the depiction of hell at all or the depiction of hell in that way)
What are the players like Google who are facing the prospect of having to pay extra to get "full speed" doing about this? Why aren't they using their resources to counter ISP FUD over this issue?
QoS is fine and ISPs should be allowed to apply QoS to their traffic to give priority to, say, VoIP over, say, BitTorrent. Taking away the rights of ISPs to apply QoS
The 2 issues that the "anti-net neutrality" crowd should be focusing on are:
1.When ISPs give preferential treatment to, say, CableCo VoIP over, say, Vonage. Or give preferential treatment to a customer who pays extra for the privilege.
and 2.When ISPs deliberatly limit the speeds of certain data (based on network protocols, port numbers, source and destination address or whatever else) so that that data can never go at the full speed of whatever broadband link you have.
is all the DRM that these phones are going to have.
Regardless of your attitude towards people who download copies of music without the copyright holders permission, I don't know of too many people here who would argue that its OK to SELL copies of music without the copyright holders permission.
This is where the RIAA should be focusing their time.
In order of how dangerous I consider them
1.Phishing, identity theft and the like (e.g. credit card numbers being stolen)
2.Fraud (for example fraudulent ebay auctions, Nigerian spam emails, "you have won a lottery you never actually entered" etc)
3.Viruses and malware (including the zombie bots that make up DDOS and spam botnets)
4.Spyware and privacy violations (including the stuff that tracks every website you visit and sends that information off to some scum marketing agency to sell to the highest bidder)
5.People who aren't who they say they are (i.e. "internet stranger danger" in general, going to meet someone you have only ever known online without taking steps to make sure you are safe etc)
These are the real Dangers, not "Online Bullying" or whatever crap TFA is talking about (but the senate resolution it talks about is really an attempt to say to the voters about to vote in the 2008 election "we DO care about making the internet safe for your kids, does the other guy care?")
I personally do not believe in using censor ware or controls or monitoring. If I had kids, I would just set some ground rules like "don't post our home address or phone number online", "don't touch the parents credit cards", "don't go and meet someone in the real world who you have only met online unless a parent or responsible adult is there to make sure its safe" and so on. Give them their own PC with good anti-virus and anti-spyware and their own email address and let them experience the great uncontrolled mass of information and entertainment that is The Internet.
I have been using the internet since the days when "the internet" meant dialing up to a computer with a terminal program and getting a text screen and I don't buy into all the "the internet is dangerous and must be controlled/regulated" crap.
2 problems with that:
1.The government in whatever country is doing the censoring will just stop these (arrest people bringing them into the country for example)
also 2.The government in countries involved in the supply of the "anti-censorship tech" might decide to stop it. For example, a while back there was an anti-censorship group that wanted to send balloons filled with radios over the North Korean border so that the North Koreans might actually get something vaguely resembling information (instead of the propaganda they get now) but the South Korean government stopped them from doing it.
The smaller you make the binary blobs, the easier it is for other people to clean-room reverse engineer and clone said binary blobs (as has been done for some of the WiFi cards with binary blobs)
If you are looking for a static analysis tool, check out PREFast. If your code is able to be compiled with Visual C++ 2005, PREFast can analyze it and find potential issues in your code. Plus, its 100% free (if you download the latest platform SDK and use the compiler that is included with that SDK)
linux apps can't compete with PS3 licensed games. In order to run any linux software you need to install the PS3 otheros loader first. No games company is going to want to cut down the market by forcing people to install that loader.
I suspect the real desire is to stop things like Second Life (which competes directly with Sony's new online virtual world offering) being ported to PS3 linux. The people who are likely to use things like Second Life are more likely to have the know-how to install the otheros loader and such.
Is Nouveau using the NV code (or the information contained therein) for the 2D part of their work? If they aren't, why not?
I wonder if it would be possible to produce a driver that didnt use the patented features (and as such presumably didnt support that relies on the patent) but still implemented the rest of the functionality of the GPU. For example, if nvidia has licensed the S3TC patent, they could remove the S3TC code from the "open source" driver.
Or they could go half way by taking all the code that they don't own and all the code that relies on 3rd party patents where the patent holder has forbidden them from releasing source and put those into the "binary blobs" (like they have now) and make the rest of the code (which they own the copyright to and which is not covered by whatever 3rd party patents they have licensed) available (in much the same way at least one vendor of WiFi cards has put only the bare minimum code that has to remain closed for FCC certification into a binary blob and made the rest of the code open source)
What its about is ISPs faced with the rapid growth of sites like YouTube which their network just cant handle.
They have 3 options:
1.They can increase their prices so that they can afford to expand their network so it can handle the increased amount of multimedia traffic.
2.They can introduce limits on how much you can download so that your $x per month only includes 10GB of transfers or 5GB of transfers or whatever.
or 3.They can throttle access to the high bandwidth multimedia sites unless those sites are willing to pay money to the ISP to cover the fact that the ISPs network cant handle the traffic.
The ISPs don't want to pick option 1 because they would loose customers to other ISPs who didnt pick option 1 (or with networks that aren't yet congested enough for the ISP to need to pick an option)
They don't want to pick option 2 either because most consumers don't have a clue how much bandwidth they are using or how much data they are transferring (unlike, say, phone calls where costs are based on how long you are on the phone which is an easy thing to measure). So if ISPs start setting limits, they would loose customers who would think "I don't want to be hit with a bill at the end of the month and I don't have a clue how much I am downloading so I will find an ISP that has no such restrictions"
So, ISPs faced with increasingly congested networks want to be able to throttle back speeds to known high bandwidth sites. That or have the site pay up to get better treatment.
Anyone who says net neutrality is about QoS or common carrier or anything else is wrong. The issue at stake here is simply that ISPs want to throttle high bandwidth sites and protocols unless they are paid money by the owners of those sites.
Also, its aimed at making it harder for people (in, say, a class action lawsuit) to point and say "the apple service manual clearly lists a fix for caused by " therefore apple is clearly aware of and should give us compensation/replacement hardware/a free fix/whatever
My Centrex 51cm CRT TV came with schematics (although most of the page is taken up by a couple large square boxes representing custom ASICs)
Get an XBOX 360 and you can set Family Settings to restrict that stuff (I don't know if it actually has time lockouts but it certainly has content lockouts)
There is nothing in the GPL (v2 or v3) stopping Tivo from adding code to the proprietary media recorders and codecs (that handle the DRM stuff) so that such applications will refuse to run if the OS has been tampered with in ways Tivo does not like.
Likely Tivo will continue using the linux kernel as it does now (since the kernel wont go to GPLv3). Any userland it is using it will replace with other (not GPL) stuff or keep using the old GPLv2 version.
Products which remove existing DRM are illegal under the DMCA. Hence, the DVDCCA can sue anyone decrypting DVDs without permission (or more to the point, making software that decrypts DVDs). However, a DRM free Tivo would not violate the DMCA unless it contained a HDMI input with HDCP (in which case decrypting the HDCP output and storing the result in an unencrypted form would be a DMCA violation) it removed/ignored Macrovision from an analog video stream (again a DMCA violation) or it contained a cable/sattelite decoder such as CableCard (in which case decrypting the encrypted signals and storing them in an unencrypted form would be a DMCA violation).
As of yet, there is nothing in US law or any of the various specifications (such as ATSC/NTSC) requiring that a video capture device store its content in an encrypted form (laws like that have been drafted before IIRC but none have actually passed through congress)
So, a Tivo that does not support HDCP, cable/sattelite TV or macrovision ignoring/removal would not be illegal under current US law. Which means the MPAA would have nothing they can sue Tivo for (note IANAL so I may be unaware of a law that DRM free Tivo would be in violation of)
Is there any actual law that requires Tivo to implement DRM on its PVRs? Would not doing so break any laws? (I am referring to a normal Tivo, not one with CableCard or other pay TV stuff in there)
How is Tivo different from a VCR? (which, IIRC, is legal under the Betamax decision)
What the industry really needs is a memory card standard that is totally open with absolutely no fees required to produce memory cards, card readers or software for it (unlike SD where you need to pay license fees). Or failing that, develop a standard where you only need to pay license frees if you are producing the physical hardware (i.e. the memory card or socket) and where the software is totally open. Motorola for example were caught between a rock and a hard place a while back because they had released a phone with a driver for the included SD slot built into the linux kernel instead of being a module and were stuck between "GPL violation" and "violating the SD association NDAs" (at the time they had to choose "GPL violation". It was all cleared up when the SD card people were convinced to release the "simplified specs" and Motorola could release the code in question)
Make sure you get electricians who can work with builders, local authorities/inspectors etc too.
If this is true, why are the blackout regions for most teams far larger than the catchment area of people who are actually able to go to the games?
I notice that windows always seems to hang (with very little response) just after I log in whilst all the startup programs start up (SeaMonkey quick launch, Miranda IM, AVG Anti-virus etc). Once the apps load, it becomes responsive again pretty quickly. Oh and I have a nice beefy machine so I don't think its my specs (unless its a case of too many programs all trying to access the hard drive at once :)