It is amazing that the LA Times would even try this since they do such a good job of "filtering" in their letters to the editor section. It is nominally 10/1 liberally biased.(That based on an unscientific poll my Dad did of the paper some years ago..) He and a couple hundred thousand others have dropped the paper because of it's bias. The paper's subscription rate have been rapidly declining over the last many years in large part due to this (the coming of the internet doubtless also has something to do with it).
The LA Times - even the Fish don't want to be wrapped up in it anymore!
Interesting name "Harmony"
on
Open source Java?
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
What is interesting is that another project by this name got started during the QT is BAD days. Several developers started the "Harmony" project to replace the QT library with a GPL'd clone. Trolltech relicensing the library stopped this in it's tracks.
If you are depriving someone of income that they are entitled too legally by copying their IP (protected by copyright in this case), then that is theft of potential income.
As I said. Theft is still theft. Pretty simple concept really - not Orwellian at all.
"Boy scouts are about honor and doing what is right and..."
Think about this for a second. Whether you like it or not, MPAA DOES have some legitimate gripes. How they go about resolving those issues isn't nice, but theft is still theft.
Getting Boy Scouts (of whatever nation) to honor someone else's property is well within the concept of "doing the right thing" in my book!
In looking at the "response" by the register, it looks more like the original article than a response.
In any case, the big problem the register has is PJ's summary of how Monterey was a "stopgap" on IBM's way to Linux.
That seems to be much ado about nothing (then we ARE talking about the register;-)
Whether Monterey was a "stopgap" or not doesn't matter to the case, but rather whether SCO was aware of IBM's intent to run the code on the power PC. THAT is why the "evidence" that has been recorded on Groklaw is important.
Some of their vaunted examples of piracy on the part of IBM was code that Linus typed in early on that are in the POSIX standard...things like errno.h as an example!
SCO tried saying that most of the.h files from POSIX standard were covered by their license and were released illegally. It must have been IBM after all.
Mr. Murphy doesn't have a clue about what the case is about, what the real history of the development of both AIX and Linux are, etc. One of SCO's MAJOR issues is that IBM gave their own code to Linux (things like the journaling file system from....OS/2!!!!!) and that since it was in AIX also it MUST BE covered as a derived work. This is a truly tortuous line of logic when looked at through the filter of copyright law.
SCO has YET to provide one single line of code in public (or to IBM from what I read) that can be said to be an example of IBM code that violates SCO's licensing. That is a simple fact.
Well -the thing is that to play in the "global" market place these guys are going to have to sign up to the existing Patent, trademark and copyright laws of their customers (though China and India could be captive internal markets all their un-to themselves.)
Once that happens Uncle Bill and IBM have them!;-)
The guy who mentioned "Despreading" had the right idea. Use of "Spread-spectrum" direct sequence modulation is probably the most secure you're going to get. Essentially, a "key" is used to control the spreading code. If you don't have the key, you can't receive the signal.
Further, the transmission by it's very nature is somewhat covert. Now - if you're the NSA, perhaps you can figure out, but it's likely to be able to put together a system that is for all intents and purposes "private" using this type of transmission.
Now -FCC licenses, and spectruma are your REAL problem. The technical problems have solutions.
Yeah - what it tells me is that the cable is acting like an antenna, and needs an RF choke on it. Note that RF chokes are going to kill things ABOVE audio frequency.
As for "roll off" - naaahh.. Audio is almost DC! It barely is vibrating as far as that goes. Asusming you don't have basic ohmic loss in a cable - just about anything works INCLUDING AC power cables! See the posting by the EE who posted early that ACTUALLY MEASURED SUCH THINGS.
Psst - ham radio operator who has trouble shot stuff like that in the field speaking...
Trust the EE's who have posted (whoops - I'm one of those too;-)
I've never bothered to measure the DC resistance of some chunk of zip core, but likely it would work just fine for speakers.
There is a simple physical truism that loss is a function of wavelength on in a transmission media. When you are talking 40Khz, well you do the math. Assuming your're not using wire that might act like a fuse, there is NO reason to use expensive cable for speakers.
As for HDTV, etc. Basic 75 ohm coax will do the trick.
First let me say that I'm an ex Adaptec employee. In fact we used Linux in the mid 90's at Adaptec as X terms at home, and they have had an on-going relationship with Opensource of one sort or another for quite a long time.
I read Doug's response. What I SAW was Adaptec saying we'll be releasing everything together in 4 months. That is when the company is going to be ready to release an SDK, and documentation will be part of that release.
The OpenBSD guys response was "Can't you read! I want documentation NOW or I'm going to take my OS and go home."
So you have a company that is heading to the place the OpenBSD guys have asked for, but the OpenBSD guys are to impatient for the company's timeline. Oh - and the OpenBSD guys are being imature to boot.
The reason that Congress/FCC can restrict speech on the Broadcast channels is because they are over a shared resource, i.e. the EM spectrum. This entire regiment was established with the Communications Act of 1934 which created FCC. This issue has been upheld several time in the courts (so the FCC DOES have the responsibility and capability to restrict programming over broadcasts...get over it.)
However, same argument can't be made for cable ( a privately owned distribution system.) I've got to think that this then becomes commercial speech which can be some-what limited but you start getting some 1st Amendment protection. I'm not sure Congress's move would stand up to constitutional muster because of that angle.
I've got to say that they DON'T have a right. I was a victim of their DR-DOS isn't compatible trick. I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA! I became rather negative towards this convicted monopolist when I found out they had done that on purpose!
Oh - did you notice that last sentence - CONVICTED MONOPOLIST. They have to play by a different set of rules.
If they are selling a package - say "Office" and someone wants to run that on another platform, then MS doesn't really have the right to restrict where it runs. They may imply they do through EULA's, etc. but this would like be easily proved as monopolist behavior - and oh yeah - they've been convicted of that already!
Better yet - China is a bigger poluter than the US, yet excused from the protocols because it's a developing country (as is India.)
So why should the US participate when llarger poluters than ourselves aren't?
Maybe you need to do something about CO2, but shouldn't EVERYONE need to play? The protocol looks like another UN scheme to redistribute wealth is all to me.
Let's just consider the source, i.e. the LA times which has a 10/1 ratio of liberal versus conservative responses in the letter's to the editors section.
The LA times hasn't been worth reading for 15plus years...this from a native Angelino that grew up on the times!
Well - this is plain ignorant. If they hack the site, or apply a DOS attack or some such against the AA servers, then that (and many other similar activities) are against the law. Further, these servers are Federal computers which makes it a Federal Case!
Lastly - don't forget - these guys have REAL guns...real BIG guns!;-)
It also could be do to something ALOT simpler called reflections on the cable itself. If they didn't do a good job at matching their output to 75 ohms (assuming they're using cable to hookup to the TV), it could just be a reflection on the cable itself causing the ghosting. This is an effect similar to what multi-path looks like on an over-the air broadcast (though a completely different cause.)
Slashdot Mirror
Understatement - they've turned it off!
And of course it will be constantly defaced!
It is amazing that the LA Times would even try this since they do such a good job of "filtering" in their letters to the editor section. It is nominally 10/1 liberally biased.(That based on an unscientific poll my Dad did of the paper some years ago..) He and a couple hundred thousand others have dropped the paper because of it's bias. The paper's subscription rate have been rapidly declining over the last many years in large part due to this (the coming of the internet doubtless also has something to do with it).
The LA Times - even the Fish don't want to be wrapped up in it anymore!
Ah - you just wish you had thought of it! ;-)
What is interesting is that another project by this name got started during the QT is BAD days. Several developers started the "Harmony" project to replace the QT library with a GPL'd clone. Trolltech relicensing the library stopped this in it's tracks.
;-)
Odd how history DOES repeat itself
If you are depriving someone of income that they are entitled too legally by copying their IP (protected by copyright in this case), then that is theft of potential income.
As I said. Theft is still theft. Pretty simple concept really - not Orwellian at all.
"Boy scouts are about honor and doing what is right and ..."
Think about this for a second. Whether you like it or not, MPAA DOES have some legitimate gripes. How they go about resolving those issues isn't nice, but theft is still theft.
Getting Boy Scouts (of whatever nation) to honor someone else's property is well within the concept of "doing the right thing" in my book!
In looking at the "response" by the register, it looks more like the original article than a response.
;-)
In any case, the big problem the register has is PJ's summary of how Monterey was a "stopgap" on IBM's way to Linux.
That seems to be much ado about nothing (then we ARE talking about the register
Whether Monterey was a "stopgap" or not doesn't matter to the case, but rather whether SCO was aware of IBM's intent to run the code on the power PC. THAT is why the "evidence" that has been recorded on Groklaw is important.
Yeah - but that isn't SCO's theory.
.h files from POSIX standard were covered by their license and were released illegally. It must have been IBM after all.
....OS/2!!!!!) and that since it was in AIX also it MUST BE covered as a derived work. This is a truly tortuous line of logic when looked at through the filter of copyright law.
Some of their vaunted examples of piracy on the part of IBM was code that Linus typed in early on that are in the POSIX standard...things like errno.h as an example!
SCO tried saying that most of the
Mr. Murphy doesn't have a clue about what the case is about, what the real history of the development of both AIX and Linux are, etc. One of SCO's MAJOR issues is that IBM gave their own code to Linux (things like the journaling file system from
SCO has YET to provide one single line of code in public (or to IBM from what I read) that can be said to be an example of IBM code that violates SCO's licensing. That is a simple fact.
Well -the thing is that to play in the "global" market place these guys are going to have to sign up to the existing Patent, trademark and copyright laws of their customers (though China and India could be captive internal markets all their un-to themselves.)
;-)
Once that happens Uncle Bill and IBM have them!
The guy who mentioned "Despreading" had the right idea. Use of "Spread-spectrum" direct sequence modulation is probably the most secure you're going to get. Essentially, a "key" is used to control the spreading code. If you don't have the key, you can't receive the signal.
Further, the transmission by it's very nature is somewhat covert. Now - if you're the NSA, perhaps you can figure out, but it's likely to be able to put together a system that is for all intents and purposes "private" using this type of transmission.
Now -FCC licenses, and spectruma are your REAL problem. The technical problems have solutions.
Yeah - what it tells me is that the cable is acting like an antenna, and needs an RF choke on it. Note that RF chokes are going to kill things ABOVE audio frequency.
;-)
As for "roll off" - naaahh.. Audio is almost DC! It barely is vibrating as far as that goes. Asusming you don't have basic ohmic loss in a cable - just about anything works INCLUDING AC power cables! See the posting by the EE who posted early that ACTUALLY MEASURED SUCH THINGS.
Psst - ham radio operator who has trouble shot stuff like that in the field speaking...
Trust the EE's who have posted (whoops - I'm one of those too
I'd love to set you up in a double blind test.
Anyone that has EVER taken such a test is dissappointed with the results. Because you find you wasted all that money on useless expensive cables!
I've never bothered to measure the DC resistance of some chunk of zip core, but likely it would work just fine for speakers.
There is a simple physical truism that loss is a function of wavelength on in a transmission media. When you are talking 40Khz, well you do the math. Assuming your're not using wire that might act like a fuse, there is NO reason to use expensive cable for speakers.
As for HDTV, etc. Basic 75 ohm coax will do the trick.
First let me say that I'm an ex Adaptec employee. In fact we used Linux in the mid 90's at Adaptec as X terms at home, and they have had an on-going relationship with Opensource of one sort or another for quite a long time.
I read Doug's response. What I SAW was Adaptec saying we'll be releasing everything together in 4 months. That is when the company is going to be ready to release an SDK, and documentation will be part of that release.
The OpenBSD guys response was "Can't you read! I want documentation NOW or I'm going to take my OS and go home."
So you have a company that is heading to the place the OpenBSD guys have asked for, but the OpenBSD guys are to impatient for the company's timeline. Oh - and the OpenBSD guys are being imature to boot.
Just get a sign and hang it around your neck.
;-)
"Will Code for Food - my job went to Bangalore!"
I just updated to something like 3.95pl1 last weekend.
Now I get to do it again....
There sure is a lot to timing isn't there.
What I don't understand is that they were both a rip-off of RT-11??
If you'll remember the "pip" command from CP/M? That is straight out of RT-11, and other DEC OS's.
Nit Alert -
Tesla worked for Westinghouse
The reason that Congress/FCC can restrict speech on the Broadcast channels is because they are over a shared resource, i.e. the EM spectrum. This entire regiment was established with the Communications Act of 1934 which created FCC. This issue has been upheld several time in the courts (so the FCC DOES have the responsibility and capability to restrict programming over broadcasts...get over it.)
However, same argument can't be made for cable ( a privately owned distribution system.) I've got to think that this then becomes commercial speech which can be some-what limited but you start getting some 1st Amendment protection. I'm not sure Congress's move would stand up to constitutional muster because of that angle.
I've got to say that they DON'T have a right. I was a victim of their DR-DOS isn't compatible trick. I was forced to go buy Dos 6.0 and then it ATE MY DATA! I became rather negative towards this convicted monopolist when I found out they had done that on purpose!
Oh - did you notice that last sentence - CONVICTED MONOPOLIST. They have to play by a different set of rules.
If they are selling a package - say "Office" and someone wants to run that on another platform, then MS doesn't really have the right to restrict where it runs. They may imply they do through EULA's, etc. but this would like be easily proved as monopolist behavior - and oh yeah - they've been convicted of that already!
This behavior fits that model EXACTLY!
Better yet - China is a bigger poluter than the US, yet excused from the protocols because it's a developing country (as is India.)
So why should the US participate when llarger poluters than ourselves aren't?
Maybe you need to do something about CO2, but shouldn't EVERYONE need to play? The protocol looks like another UN scheme to redistribute wealth is all to me.
Let's just consider the source, i.e. the LA times which has a 10/1 ratio of liberal versus conservative responses in the letter's to the editors section.
The LA times hasn't been worth reading for 15plus years...this from a native Angelino that grew up on the times!
Well - this is plain ignorant. If they hack the site, or apply a DOS attack or some such against the AA servers, then that (and many other similar activities) are against the law. Further, these servers are Federal computers which makes it a Federal Case!
;-)
Lastly - don't forget - these guys have REAL guns...real BIG guns!
Yep - I was wondering when someone would get around to point the blame at hummanity for the errosion of Saturn's rings.
I can just see it now - SUV causes Saturn's rings to crash.
It also could be do to something ALOT simpler called reflections on the cable itself. If they didn't do a good job at matching their output to 75 ohms (assuming they're using cable to hookup to the TV), it could just be a reflection on the cable itself causing the ghosting. This is an effect similar to what multi-path looks like on an over-the air broadcast (though a completely different cause.)
For goodness sake - That should be "WIN" the project.