More likely they're recording to tape at 960x1080 to save bandwidth as they don't have much, even with the MPEG2 compression. They should have gone MPEG4 like HDCAM SR, but I doubt they want to errode their pro sales.
To use the JVC with OS X and FCP you can use www.lumiereHD.com software - works great, and Apple support it.
The fact that the CCD on the JVC is 4x3 is irrelevent as it has more than enough pixels for them to take a 720p centre crop out of it. It's a hybrid CCD with enough resolution for widesceeen 1280x720 and 720x480 SD. However, it is one chip, and the image looks like crap as it's over-sharpened.
The Sony camera is 1080i, but only 960 horizontal pixels, which get stretched to make a 16x9 aspect ratio, so it's sort of anamorphic, and doesn't use square pixels.
The main problem with the JVC is manual controls, but the Sony doesn't even have XLR inputs for your mics. I'm sure Sony will do a pro version for a few dollars more and that will be much more worth seeing.
I don't think that the judge is confused. Only in the last week has IBM's legal team stopped pulling punches, and I think they've still got much in reserve, legally speaking. They have the best expert witnesses that blow SCO's out of the water. Now they've started calling SCO liars in the court documents.
The Judge has been very careful, very measured, and I guess, just giving SCO time to really make sure, before they meet his wrath.
Possibly..... But it doesn't matter wether it takes 1 second or 1 hour to download a DVD - that's not the point. The point is that Jack talks out of his arse saying whatever he feels like. He wanted the VCR stopped, but it made him more money than I don't know what. Now he wants to kill the internet, and just think
If everyone had 1GB/sec links to their homes, and the hard drives and RAM to match, then they'd be able to distribute DVD content to homes practically for free, making their distributions and manufacturing costs practically nill - or zero if they go P2P. All they have to do is figure out how to make money off it!
The Lie is the implied assumption that 1GB a second to the home is going to allow you to download a DVD in 5 seconds. It isn't. You'd have to cache it in ram, then write it out to disc, and unless you RAID your disc you're limited to 30-50MB/second, which isn't bad, but that still runs at a minute and a half to get your DVD to disc, and then as you don't have a large enough hard disc to keep too many of them around, you have to wait how long to burn it to a blank DVD.
OK - it's not much a lie as a pure exaggeration slipperly slope argument type thing - typical of Jack and his Boston Strangler comments.
BTW my system has 4.5GB ram. And that was expensive enough! Current PC's can't address more than 4GB anyway, can they? Need to go to 64 bit first? It's not like as soon as "everyone" has a 1GB link to their homes that it's automatic they can have a new pirate DVD every 5 seconds like he implies.
Th difficulty with the current system is the illegality of making backups and the fact that DVDs can rapidly go out of print, leaving you, the "owner" of the DVD with nothing.
Copyright is a monopoly. I think that for as long as you have copyright on something and sell a product based upon it, that you must support it. End of story.
LIE: "Where did this backup copy thing come from? A digital thing lasts forever."
No it doesn't. CDs rust because of manufacturing defects. DVDs scratch so easily you'd think they were designed to need replacing if the kids get hold of them! Jack's comment is like saying that insurance is unnecessary because houses don't burn down. Software manufacturers will replaced damaged media for a nominal fee. The DVD manufacturers could make the "you don't need a backup" line a reality if they offered $1 replacements for damaged DVDs and $0.50 replacements for CDs that get damaged, and indeed, there should be a legal mandate for them to do so upon production of a scratched original. They could handle it through the record stores - bring in your old CD or DVD, hand over your dollar, and get a bright new shining one. That would make consumers happy about buying such fragile media. At that point, however, they would not be able to say - sorry, run out of copies. They would have to make more copies rapidly if more people come back. This should also last as long as the copyright lasts upon the programme material + 50, just in case. Ofcourse, if you don't copyright it and give it to the public domain, you don't have to supply backups - now that's fair.
LIE "But I visited the labs at Caltech, and they're running an experiment called FAST where they can bring down a DVD-quality movie in 5 seconds. " what's that - about 1GB per second?? Anyone know a hard drive that fast and affordable for my edit suite??? Sure cache it in RAM first..... Seriously Jack...
LIE "There is no fair use to take something that doesn't belong to you. That's not fair use..... Now, fair use is not in the law." It's fair that we get screwed by the MPAA, but not fair when every TV advert for every movie I've ever seen says "own it on DVD" - for emphasis "OWN IT". If I own it, whatever I do with it is fair. If I own it I don't have a right to a free or very cheap replacement of the media. I know I don't own software as it's licenced. But I must own the DVD as you told me - it can't be licenced. Now which way do you want it Jack. If I own it, I'll do whatever the hell I like with it.
LIE "So there are no restrictions that Hollywood wants to place on what people can do with media on their computers?
Well, I can't tell you that. We have to see what the technology can provide." So what you're really saying Jack is that you want Linux and open source OSs illegal, everyone to buy Microsoft and have computers so restricted that they're practically games and entertainment consoles. Jack - you're such a hypocrite.
If you patent an idea without an implementation, how do you know that your idea works?
If you allow the patenting of things that don't work, we just get back to the stupidity of anti-gravity patents and the like.
The main thing abotu software patents though, is that a proff of principle pience of software is usually cheap to develop, and actually does get developed as part of the invention process.
To say OS X today is less usable than OS 7 through 9 is a joke. The old mac os worked, was relatively easy to use, but had little in the way of any real power, whereas the Unix underpinnings of OS X make it a very powerful and configurable OS indeed.
And why go on about the OS anyway - most of the time, most people spend their human user hours inside applications. Nobody buys a computer to play with the OS gui, other than when you bought an Atari ST or Amiga and never had an OS gui before....
And if games is what you're into, buy a box that plugs into your TV and get on with it. I'm not wasting thousands of dollars of computer hardware on games when it could be doing something productive and earning money instead.
But that's the whole idea - to slow the whole system down to the point where if you want to invest in the stock market you have to invest for the long term and not try to gamble and turn day profits.
To stop the problems with the financial markets, the whole system should be slowed down from the current "by the second" approach to dealing in shares.
To do this, all trades should be done on a weekly basis. During the week you can put in all your share orders, buy or sell, and on Sunday they get computed. Monday moring you can see what you got.
I think SCO are claiming that IBM don't have a valid SVR4 licence, and that they have found SVR4 code in AIX. However, upon reading the project Montery contracts, it would seem that it is SCO that does not have the right to use code from the project outside an intel architecture, not IBM, who do not have that clause contraining them in the contract. ie IBM have every right to use SVR4 code and they know it.
Also, the Linux stuff which SCO are complaining about originated before and outside AIX, and was ported to AIX from the original source, and seperately ported to Linux from the original source...
Actually, I bet this turns out to be another SCO "bad" interpretation of a contract. After all, that's what they're famous for "irrevocable != irrevocable" for instance....
As for Linux, IBM put THEIR code into linux - not SCOs. Unless SCO can show UNIX code in Linux, and then prove that they own Linux, then IBM do not have any problems at all. Given also, that Novel have a right to "cancel" any SCO Unix related law suit, I'd find it very hard to imagine a sitution where SCO wins. IBM is just going through the motions with them to get a court to say that Linux is free. If they'd wanted to get the case dismissed, they would have a while back, but they're holding back on all their aces.
I don't think it's that software can be perfectly reproduced, but that just ask books aren't patentable, and they are a literary expression of a story idea, why should software, which is a programatical language expression of an idea be different? Just because it "does something" when used in conjunction with a computer that can run the program doesn't make it different enough in my eyes.
I guess it would be hard to prove independent development, but it's obvious (to me at least) that there should be, morally, equivalent protection for parallel work, but if that's not workable in the patent process, should that not be one more nail in the coffin of software patents??? If you're at the bleeding edge of some technology, the thought that a competitor might get to the patent office first is a very real threat to stiffle development, especially if you're a smaller company without a patent lawyer on staff.
I think that when people write patents they try to disclose as little as possible, while making the patent as broad as possible. Either way, it certainly doesn't fit in with the initial goal of the patent system, and doesn't help send improvements in the "art" back to society.
If so, then you wouldn't have to publically disclose the workings of your invention. Patents are to protect work that is publically disclose so the secrets of any invention don't get lost to society, and hence, after the patent expires, you can build upon that invention.
But patents rarely fully disclose exactly how the invention works, and as we know, the devil is in the detail. I think a lot of people skilled in a particular art would find it hard to re-create an invention from it's patent - indeed, there are many patents for things that do not work.
Patents are protection for ideas, but ideas are worthless when implementation is everything, which is certainly the case in software. Implementations are adequately protected by copyrights.
Patents may have meant something in the dim, dark past when people patented physical inventions that worked, but now....
The problem is with the mere idea of patenting software. Software is protected by trade secrets and copyrights. Patents should apply to things, not virtual things. Hell, I'd like to see the end of patents altogether ( in their current form) - I hate the idea that it's first to the patent office who gets the monopoly. Independent works should also get protection because they put equally hard work into their invention too. As long as they didn't copy, then that would be fine by me.
Inventions are often hard, and really, if the invention is already out there, it's much cheaper to buy rather than re-invent, but if you put the effort into inventing parallel (or without any knowledge of) a patented invention, why should you not also get protection???
Slashdot Mirror
More likely they're recording to tape at 960x1080 to save bandwidth as they don't have much, even with the MPEG2 compression. They should have gone MPEG4 like HDCAM SR, but I doubt they want to errode their pro sales.
HDCAM SR, the new higher quality HDCAM format records at 440mbps, giving a 2.7:1 compression for 4:2:2 or 4.3:1 compression for 4:4:4
1080p is at 24, 25, and 30 fps and therefore runs at equivalent data rates to the 1080i 50i and 60i formats.
Also, 40Mbps is what, 5megabytes per second, which even a 6 year old hard drive can record at quite easily!!! No raid needed!!
To use the JVC with OS X and FCP you can use www.lumiereHD.com software - works great, and Apple support it.
The fact that the CCD on the JVC is 4x3 is irrelevent as it has more than enough pixels for them to take a 720p centre crop out of it. It's a hybrid CCD with enough resolution for widesceeen 1280x720 and 720x480 SD. However, it is one chip, and the image looks like crap as it's over-sharpened.
The Sony camera is 1080i, but only 960 horizontal pixels, which get stretched to make a 16x9 aspect ratio, so it's sort of anamorphic, and doesn't use square pixels.
The main problem with the JVC is manual controls, but the Sony doesn't even have XLR inputs for your mics. I'm sure Sony will do a pro version for a few dollars more and that will be much more worth seeing.
Actually, the Sony records at 960x1080 - and then stretches the image back out to 16x9 aspect ratio for viewing.
I don't think that the judge is confused. Only in the last week has IBM's legal team stopped pulling punches, and I think they've still got much in reserve, legally speaking. They have the best expert witnesses that blow SCO's out of the water. Now they've started calling SCO liars in the court documents.
The Judge has been very careful, very measured, and I guess, just giving SCO time to really make sure, before they meet his wrath.
Possibly..... But it doesn't matter wether it takes 1 second or 1 hour to download a DVD - that's not the point. The point is that Jack talks out of his arse saying whatever he feels like. He wanted the VCR stopped, but it made him more money than I don't know what. Now he wants to kill the internet, and just think
If everyone had 1GB/sec links to their homes, and the hard drives and RAM to match, then they'd be able to distribute DVD content to homes practically for free, making their distributions and manufacturing costs practically nill - or zero if they go P2P. All they have to do is figure out how to make money off it!
The Lie is the implied assumption that 1GB a second to the home is going to allow you to download a DVD in 5 seconds. It isn't. You'd have to cache it in ram, then write it out to disc, and unless you RAID your disc you're limited to 30-50MB/second, which isn't bad, but that still runs at a minute and a half to get your DVD to disc, and then as you don't have a large enough hard disc to keep too many of them around, you have to wait how long to burn it to a blank DVD.
OK - it's not much a lie as a pure exaggeration slipperly slope argument type thing - typical of Jack and his Boston Strangler comments.
BTW my system has 4.5GB ram. And that was expensive enough! Current PC's can't address more than 4GB anyway, can they? Need to go to 64 bit first? It's not like as soon as "everyone" has a 1GB link to their homes that it's automatic they can have a new pirate DVD every 5 seconds like he implies.
"I believe modern CDs do not rust."
Yet........
Just wait........
Thanks for digging that out! I sort of knew he was telling porkie pies, but didn't know the exact evidence to prove his words wrong. Thanks.
Th difficulty with the current system is the illegality of making backups and the fact that DVDs can rapidly go out of print, leaving you, the "owner" of the DVD with nothing.
Copyright is a monopoly. I think that for as long as you have copyright on something and sell a product based upon it, that you must support it. End of story.
CD Rot, as I think it is called is a well known phenonema as a quick we search will show:
_ ro t.htm
http://www.mv.com/ipusers/richbreton/m/files/cd
http://foetusized.org/cdrot.html
and is a commercially pressed CD problem!
LIE: "Where did this backup copy thing come from? A digital thing lasts forever."
No it doesn't. CDs rust because of manufacturing defects. DVDs scratch so easily you'd think they were designed to need replacing if the kids get hold of them! Jack's comment is like saying that insurance is unnecessary because houses don't burn down. Software manufacturers will replaced damaged media for a nominal fee. The DVD manufacturers could make the "you don't need a backup" line a reality if they offered $1 replacements for damaged DVDs and $0.50 replacements for CDs that get damaged, and indeed, there should be a legal mandate for them to do so upon production of a scratched original. They could handle it through the record stores - bring in your old CD or DVD, hand over your dollar, and get a bright new shining one. That would make consumers happy about buying such fragile media. At that point, however, they would not be able to say - sorry, run out of copies. They would have to make more copies rapidly if more people come back. This should also last as long as the copyright lasts upon the programme material + 50, just in case. Ofcourse, if you don't copyright it and give it to the public domain, you don't have to supply backups - now that's fair.
LIE "But I visited the labs at Caltech, and they're running an experiment called FAST where they can bring down a DVD-quality movie in 5 seconds. " what's that - about 1GB per second?? Anyone know a hard drive that fast and affordable for my edit suite??? Sure cache it in RAM first..... Seriously Jack...
LIE "There is no fair use to take something that doesn't belong to you. That's not fair use..... Now, fair use is not in the law." It's fair that we get screwed by the MPAA, but not fair when every TV advert for every movie I've ever seen says "own it on DVD" - for emphasis "OWN IT". If I own it, whatever I do with it is fair. If I own it I don't have a right to a free or very cheap replacement of the media. I know I don't own software as it's licenced. But I must own the DVD as you told me - it can't be licenced. Now which way do you want it Jack. If I own it, I'll do whatever the hell I like with it.
LIE "So there are no restrictions that Hollywood wants to place on what people can do with media on their computers?
Well, I can't tell you that. We have to see what the technology can provide." So what you're really saying Jack is that you want Linux and open source OSs illegal, everyone to buy Microsoft and have computers so restricted that they're practically games and entertainment consoles. Jack - you're such a hypocrite.
That's what the lap belts are for, and why they want you to wear them at all times. It has nothing to do with your safety....
If you patent an idea without an implementation, how do you know that your idea works?
If you allow the patenting of things that don't work, we just get back to the stupidity of anti-gravity patents and the like.
The main thing abotu software patents though, is that a proff of principle pience of software is usually cheap to develop, and actually does get developed as part of the invention process.
To say OS X today is less usable than OS 7 through 9 is a joke. The old mac os worked, was relatively easy to use, but had little in the way of any real power, whereas the Unix underpinnings of OS X make it a very powerful and configurable OS indeed.
And why go on about the OS anyway - most of the time, most people spend their human user hours inside applications. Nobody buys a computer to play with the OS gui, other than when you bought an Atari ST or Amiga and never had an OS gui before....
And if games is what you're into, buy a box that plugs into your TV and get on with it. I'm not wasting thousands of dollars of computer hardware on games when it could be doing something productive and earning money instead.
But that's the whole idea - to slow the whole system down to the point where if you want to invest in the stock market you have to invest for the long term and not try to gamble and turn day profits.
To stop the problems with the financial markets, the whole system should be slowed down from the current "by the second" approach to dealing in shares.
To do this, all trades should be done on a weekly basis. During the week you can put in all your share orders, buy or sell, and on Sunday they get computed. Monday moring you can see what you got.
And Novel promptly revoked the revokation of an irrevokable licence.....
It gets madder and madder.....
I think SCO are claiming that IBM don't have a valid SVR4 licence, and that they have found SVR4 code in AIX. However, upon reading the project Montery contracts, it would seem that it is SCO that does not have the right to use code from the project outside an intel architecture, not IBM, who do not have that clause contraining them in the contract. ie IBM have every right to use SVR4 code and they know it.
Also, the Linux stuff which SCO are complaining about originated before and outside AIX, and was ported to AIX from the original source, and seperately ported to Linux from the original source...
Actually, I bet this turns out to be another SCO "bad" interpretation of a contract. After all, that's what they're famous for "irrevocable != irrevocable" for instance....
As for Linux, IBM put THEIR code into linux - not SCOs. Unless SCO can show UNIX code in Linux, and then prove that they own Linux, then IBM do not have any problems at all. Given also, that Novel have a right to "cancel" any SCO Unix related law suit, I'd find it very hard to imagine a sitution where SCO wins. IBM is just going through the motions with them to get a court to say that Linux is free. If they'd wanted to get the case dismissed, they would have a while back, but they're holding back on all their aces.
I don't think it's that software can be perfectly reproduced, but that just ask books aren't patentable, and they are a literary expression of a story idea, why should software, which is a programatical language expression of an idea be different? Just because it "does something" when used in conjunction with a computer that can run the program doesn't make it different enough in my eyes.
I guess it would be hard to prove independent development, but it's obvious (to me at least) that there should be, morally, equivalent protection for parallel work, but if that's not workable in the patent process, should that not be one more nail in the coffin of software patents??? If you're at the bleeding edge of some technology, the thought that a competitor might get to the patent office first is a very real threat to stiffle development, especially if you're a smaller company without a patent lawyer on staff.
I guess that's the question I'm asking.....
I think that when people write patents they try to disclose as little as possible, while making the patent as broad as possible. Either way, it certainly doesn't fit in with the initial goal of the patent system, and doesn't help send improvements in the "art" back to society.
If so, then you wouldn't have to publically disclose the workings of your invention. Patents are to protect work that is publically disclose so the secrets of any invention don't get lost to society, and hence, after the patent expires, you can build upon that invention.
But patents rarely fully disclose exactly how the invention works, and as we know, the devil is in the detail. I think a lot of people skilled in a particular art would find it hard to re-create an invention from it's patent - indeed, there are many patents for things that do not work.
Patents are protection for ideas, but ideas are worthless when implementation is everything, which is certainly the case in software. Implementations are adequately protected by copyrights.
Patents may have meant something in the dim, dark past when people patented physical inventions that worked, but now....
The problem is with the mere idea of patenting software. Software is protected by trade secrets and copyrights. Patents should apply to things, not virtual things. Hell, I'd like to see the end of patents altogether ( in their current form) - I hate the idea that it's first to the patent office who gets the monopoly. Independent works should also get protection because they put equally hard work into their invention too. As long as they didn't copy, then that would be fine by me.
Inventions are often hard, and really, if the invention is already out there, it's much cheaper to buy rather than re-invent, but if you put the effort into inventing parallel (or without any knowledge of) a patented invention, why should you not also get protection???