However, it needs to talk to a server. They haven't open sourced the server. You can register a maximum of one client machine per e-mail address unless you pay them for support.
(Though apparently someone has written an open source up2date-compatible server)
I think you might be confusing DAT with MiniDisc. They both have serial copy prevention bits, but MD is WAY more popular with consumers, especially in Japan.
No, I'm not confusing the two, though minidisc may have taken over from DAT in the consumer market. I vaguely recall that (many years ago) Sony were planning some way cool low-cost play-only DAT walkmen...
That's a lot of US references in your post. Unfortunately I happen not to live on the continent, which was also one of the motivations for my post: streamline the standards, so that if/when you move, you don't end-up with equipment you have to leave behind.
To a large extent digital TV has brough us a single world standard -- it's called MPEG-2.
The difference is that some countries (eg the US and Japan) are transmiting high resolution MPEGs, where as others (eg here in the UK) are content to stay with the lowest resolution they can get away with.
The devil is in the detail, and we're not there yet, but there's no reason to suppose that digital TV won't take us closer to your goal of equipement interchaneability.
we don't use coax or s-video to go from our Sky and DTT boxes into our TVs in Europe, we use RGB thanks to little-credited Dutch company Philips innovating a connector standard called SCART / Peritel about a zillion fucking years ago. Am I to understand that ANOTHER TV technology innovation has passed the Americans by?
The Americans use component video to achieve the same thing. It's equivalent quality to RGB, though technically it's a different implementation.
Oh, sorry, for a moment there I forgot I was in the UK, where we've had Digital TV on Satalite, Cable and Terrestrial for over three years.
All just standard definition PAL quality. Not even as good as some of the so called standard definition digital TV that some American networks broadcast (ie the 480p stuff that I gather some networks are broadcasting, which is considerably better than anything we have here in the UK). And we have no high definition in the UK, nor even any plans for it.
What copy protection?
The fact that no cable, satellite or terrestrial set-top box you've ever seen has a digital output, precisely because the industry hasn't been able to agree how to protect it from copying.
You would think TV would do the same thing. Passing around TV shows would be an entirely new distribution network, increasing ad revenues.
Unfortunately, this won't work, for two reasons.
Firstly, I get the impression that most people who share shows over the net edit out the ads.
Seconds, you lose the geographical focus. Local advertisers aren't going to be interested in having their ad seen outside their catchement area. And even national advertisers in many cases won't be interested in having their ad viewed outside their country.
And yet it devalues the international sales of the show, because people can watch it on the net before it's been shown in their own country.
This is a lose lose situation for the TV companies...
Ahh yes, but its a game of diminishing returns. Like I said, one people realize that TV ads are little more effective than web ads then the whole system will need to be reengineered. I believe that the broadcasters will realize that their are more opportunities outside the broadcast for money making. They don't show ads on DVD collections during the shows do they?
I've read that typically the first run rights to a major US show will only net the production company about 80% of the production costs.
So they rely on rerun rights, syndication rights, international rights and VHS/DVD sales to actually take them into profit on the show.
Widespread availability of the show on the Internet after its US first run could erode the value of all of the above, and threaten the economic viability of TV production.
I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with the stance that the media industry is taking, but it isn't hard to see why they're scared. Unless they can stop the unstoppable, they will have to come up with an as yet unknown and untried business model. Would you want to be in their shoes?
technically it IS correct. the sentence can have both meanings. the fact that it is able to translate correctly to "i am a citizen of berlin" does not expressly preclude it from also being translated as "i am a jelly doughnut"
Unfortunately, Ich bin ein Berliner is not how you would say you're from Berlin: that would be Ich bin Berliner. That's why the mistake was funny.
I can't force you to understand or believe anything, and it appears that most respondents to my post are unwilling to do the most cursory investigation of any statement that contradicts their unwarranted prejudices.
Well, I did state the reasons for my beliefs, so I'd hardly describe them as unwarranted prejudices. If you want chapter and verse, then here, I've done my research now:
Everyone charged with a criminal offence shall be presumed innocent until proved guilty according to law.
Are you seriously telling me that France has been flouting it's obligations under the convention for the last 30 years and that nothing has been done about it?
I don't claim to understand French law, but you've said nothing to convince me of your statement. And the google search you cite only serves to convince me of the widespread prejudice amongst Americans about the ways in which other developed democratic states conduct their affairs.
Just because the ISP admin isn't completely competent doesn't mean I shouldn't get the email from my friends, who is almost certainly unaware of the ISP's system history.
No, it means that you should be able to choose not to receive e-mail from those friends with incompetent ISPs.
It should be pretty rare for blocklists of this king to be applied without your consent (except in a corporate environment, where the company has no obligation to allow you to receive e-mail from you friends in the first place). Sadly, of course, this isn't always the case.
All the reputable blocklists (and the MAPS lists --- eg RBL and RSS -- are amongst the most reputable out there) have clearly defined policies and procedures for putting people on and taking people off their lists.
If you're still listed on a dozen other blocklists, feel free to moan, but don't tar the MAPS lists with the same brush without evidence, because I really don't believe it.
And most responsible sysadmins -- if they choose to use a blocklist -- carefully judge the blocklist by both it's policies and the extent to which it complies with them.
Oh -- and please be aware -- with many blocklists (and in particular the MAPS RSS which is related to the RBL) you do have to request to be removed from the list. It's no good just fixing the problem and then just waiting...
One might argue that the companies sending these out are abusing the postal service beyond what the postage stamp pays for(exactly the same arguement people use to say that spammers use up to much bandwith, network resources, etc).
But in the real world(tm) you wouldn't get sued for telling people that if they receive a bright yellow envelope with a pink stripe and a particular return address it's probably a piece of junk mail advertising a credit card, so if they're not interested in such things they may as well throw the letter straigh in the recycling box without reading it.
Indeed. It's based on the balance of probabilities.
If it helps, think about it this way. There's no issue of guilt or innocence, or of accusor and accused.
It's really a financial dispute. One party (the spammer) asserts that -- according to the law of the land -- someone owes him money. The other person asserts that they do not owe any money.
The job of the court is to determine who they believe and hence how much (if any) money is owed.
Of course, in this particular case the balance of probabilities will be largely irrelevent, because most of the facts of the case will probably not be disputed.
So it really had nothing to do with presumption of guilt or innocence; the judge very probably won't be asked to make any major determinations of the facts of the case. The person involved will very probably not dispute the fact that he reported the spammer's activities, and the spammer very probably won't deny his activities.
So the judge will have to rule on a point of law. He is being asked to determine whether, under Australian law, if you report a spammer for spamming, and the spammer finds it harder to send spam as a result, are you legally required to pay him compensation? i.e. do you owe him money?
And all of us would sincerely hope that under Australian law (or any other sane law, for that matter) that the answer is 'no'. Let's hope the judge agrees.
For example, in France, once charges are brought against you, you will be assumed guilty until you can prove your innocence.
I'd be very interested in a reference to this, but I'm prety sure I don't believe it.
Certainly the French judicial system is very different from the English process that has been used as a basis in many other countries -- but that's not the same thing as saying you're guilty until proven innocent.
In fact, on reflection, this can't be true, because IIRC the European Convention on Human Rights requires a presumption of innocence.
I believe that unlike the adversorial process used in many countries -- where two competing lawyers attempt to convince the court of your guilt and innocence, the French system is inquisitorial, where the job of the court is to find out the facts of the case.
I haven't a clue how this works in practice (references or corrections greatly appreciated) but I just plain don't believe that France has a presumption of guilt.
On top of this, you've got a new player, and I'm sure those won't be nearly as cheap as even a top-end CD player is today. What's the compelling reason to spend more money on this SACD player? I know people buy B&W speakers, but counting myself, I only know of two people personally that have speakers of equal or better quality. I don't think there will be a rush on SACD players.
Not this year. Not next. But in 10 years time, SACD or DVD-Audio (or both) may well be ubiquitous. Intrinsically, it'll cost little more to produce either players or discs (once the R&D is payed off), and if most people don't notice the difference, so what? It keeps people in jobs, if nothing else...
On the other hand, I don't like the SACD format. It seems like a waste of information to me: upsampling followed by slightly lossy compression should get the job done better. But I am not an audiophile.
Actually, it's quite a clean technology, in many respects. As I understand it (and that's not very far) it's closely related to how the conventional ADCs used to encode PCM audio work -- do a Google search for delta sigma converter.
Whether it's worth it -- outside of the original use of archiving valuable analogue master tapes -- is another matter.
They can be manufactured using current methods. Redbook on one side, SACD on the other. No need for fancy layers.
I'm sure hybrid SACD manufacture is little different from dual-layer DVD manufacture.
Hybrid discs have always been part of the SACD specs -- in fact I think the original intention was that all SACD discs would be hybrid -- but they haven't been produced to date due to the additional cost.
Once consumer interest steps up a notch, I suspect it will become the norm -- the whole point of the hybrid discs is to give them a tangible benefit (ie compatibility) in the upcoming format was between SACD and DVD-Audio.
Selling this new standard based upon "higher quality" will be a complete fallacy even IF YOU ARE an insane audiophile.
Indeed. My understanding was that DSD was actually designed for archiving valuable analogue master tapes. The idea is to capture as much information as possible as early in the process as possible, but it's not clear that we can actually play back these recordings today any better than we can make high bit-rate PCM recording.
most people do not know there is much of a sound quality difference.
And this is unlikely to change.
Already most pirates satisfy themselves with MP3 when they could have the PCM soundtrack (losslessly compressed, if desired). Even fewer will notice/care about the difference between the PCM and DSD soundtracks.
AFAIK the solaris 8 sparc free binary is for 1-8 cpus.. maybe 16..
It was for up to 8 CPUs. They seem to have changed the licensing now, though, so that it's the same as the new Solaris 9 licensing. (ie machines with a CPU capacity of 2 of more CPUs require a paid-for licence)
Slashdot Mirror
However, it needs to talk to a server. They haven't open sourced the server. You can register a maximum of one client machine per e-mail address unless you pay them for support.
(Though apparently someone has written an open source up2date-compatible server)
No, I'm not confusing the two, though minidisc may have taken over from DAT in the consumer market. I vaguely recall that (many years ago) Sony were planning some way cool low-cost play-only DAT walkmen...
To a large extent digital TV has brough us a single world standard -- it's called MPEG-2.
The difference is that some countries (eg the US and Japan) are transmiting high resolution MPEGs, where as others (eg here in the UK) are content to stay with the lowest resolution they can get away with.
The devil is in the detail, and we're not there yet, but there's no reason to suppose that digital TV won't take us closer to your goal of equipement interchaneability.
The Americans use component video to achieve the same thing. It's equivalent quality to RGB, though technically it's a different implementation.
FWIW, I believe it is popular for consumer audio in Japan.
Firstly, I get the impression that most people who share shows over the net edit out the ads.
Seconds, you lose the geographical focus. Local advertisers aren't going to be interested in having their ad seen outside their catchement area. And even national advertisers in many cases won't be interested in having their ad viewed outside their country.
And yet it devalues the international sales of the show, because people can watch it on the net before it's been shown in their own country.
This is a lose lose situation for the TV companies...
I've read that typically the first run rights to a major US show will only net the production company about 80% of the production costs.
So they rely on rerun rights, syndication rights, international rights and VHS/DVD sales to actually take them into profit on the show.
Widespread availability of the show on the Internet after its US first run could erode the value of all of the above, and threaten the economic viability of TV production.
I'm not necessarily saying that I agree with the stance that the media industry is taking, but it isn't hard to see why they're scared. Unless they can stop the unstoppable, they will have to come up with an as yet unknown and untried business model. Would you want to be in their shoes?
Unfortunately, Ich bin ein Berliner is not how you would say you're from Berlin: that would be Ich bin Berliner. That's why the mistake was funny.
The European Convention on Human Rights, of which France is a signatory states (Article 6, para 2):
Are you seriously telling me that France has been flouting it's obligations under the convention for the last 30 years and that nothing has been done about it?I don't claim to understand French law, but you've said nothing to convince me of your statement. And the google search you cite only serves to convince me of the widespread prejudice amongst Americans about the ways in which other developed democratic states conduct their affairs.
No, it means that you should be able to choose not to receive e-mail from those friends with incompetent ISPs.
It should be pretty rare for blocklists of this king to be applied without your consent (except in a corporate environment, where the company has no obligation to allow you to receive e-mail from you friends in the first place). Sadly, of course, this isn't always the case.
All the reputable blocklists (and the MAPS lists --- eg RBL and RSS -- are amongst the most reputable out there) have clearly defined policies and procedures for putting people on and taking people off their lists.
If you're still listed on a dozen other blocklists, feel free to moan, but don't tar the MAPS lists with the same brush without evidence, because I really don't believe it.
And most responsible sysadmins -- if they choose to use a blocklist -- carefully judge the blocklist by both it's policies and the extent to which it complies with them.
Oh -- and please be aware -- with many blocklists (and in particular the MAPS RSS which is related to the RBL) you do have to request to be removed from the list. It's no good just fixing the problem and then just waiting...
At work, perhaps 30 out of 100 e-mails a day are spam.
At home perhaps 5 out of 6 e-mails a day are spam.
For me, spam is much more troublesome than junk (paper) mail, both at work and at home.
Maybe you're luckier than me; I hope so...
But in the real world(tm) you wouldn't get sued for telling people that if they receive a bright yellow envelope with a pink stripe and a particular return address it's probably a piece of junk mail advertising a credit card, so if they're not interested in such things they may as well throw the letter straigh in the recycling box without reading it.
Indeed. It's based on the balance of probabilities.
If it helps, think about it this way. There's no issue of guilt or innocence, or of accusor and accused.
It's really a financial dispute. One party (the spammer) asserts that -- according to the law of the land -- someone owes him money. The other person asserts that they do not owe any money.
The job of the court is to determine who they believe and hence how much (if any) money is owed.
Of course, in this particular case the balance of probabilities will be largely irrelevent, because most of the facts of the case will probably not be disputed.
So it really had nothing to do with presumption of guilt or innocence; the judge very probably won't be asked to make any major determinations of the facts of the case. The person involved will very probably not dispute the fact that he reported the spammer's activities, and the spammer very probably won't deny his activities.
So the judge will have to rule on a point of law. He is being asked to determine whether, under Australian law, if you report a spammer for spamming, and the spammer finds it harder to send spam as a result, are you legally required to pay him compensation? i.e. do you owe him money?
And all of us would sincerely hope that under Australian law (or any other sane law, for that matter) that the answer is 'no'. Let's hope the judge agrees.
I'd be very interested in a reference to this, but I'm prety sure I don't believe it.
Certainly the French judicial system is very different from the English process that has been used as a basis in many other countries -- but that's not the same thing as saying you're guilty until proven innocent.
In fact, on reflection, this can't be true, because IIRC the European Convention on Human Rights requires a presumption of innocence.
I believe that unlike the adversorial process used in many countries -- where two competing lawyers attempt to convince the court of your guilt and innocence, the French system is inquisitorial, where the job of the court is to find out the facts of the case.
I haven't a clue how this works in practice (references or corrections greatly appreciated) but I just plain don't believe that France has a presumption of guilt.
Not this year. Not next. But in 10 years time, SACD or DVD-Audio (or both) may well be ubiquitous. Intrinsically, it'll cost little more to produce either players or discs (once the R&D is payed off), and if most people don't notice the difference, so what? It keeps people in jobs, if nothing else...
Whether it's worth it -- outside of the original use of archiving valuable analogue master tapes -- is another matter.
I'm sure hybrid SACD manufacture is little different from dual-layer DVD manufacture.
Hybrid discs have always been part of the SACD specs -- in fact I think the original intention was that all SACD discs would be hybrid -- but they haven't been produced to date due to the additional cost.
Once consumer interest steps up a notch, I suspect it will become the norm -- the whole point of the hybrid discs is to give them a tangible benefit (ie compatibility) in the upcoming format was between SACD and DVD-Audio.
Indeed. My understanding was that DSD was actually designed for archiving valuable analogue master tapes. The idea is to capture as much information as possible as early in the process as possible, but it's not clear that we can actually play back these recordings today any better than we can make high bit-rate PCM recording.
IIRC, the SS10/SS20 has a CPU capacity of 4 (using two dual-processor M-bus cards) so you'd need a 4-CPU license.
It was for up to 8 CPUs. They seem to have changed the licensing now, though, so that it's the same as the new Solaris 9 licensing. (ie machines with a CPU capacity of 2 of more CPUs require a paid-for licence)