Pretty much every motherboard I've bought in the past ~5 years has had a line in jack. Before you complain that the fidelity of onboard audio sucks, let me point out that it has gotten a lot better lately (at least on reputable brands like Asus). While onboard may still not be up to true high fidelity standards, it is "good enough" for the majority of non-professional use cases.
Actually, no it is not hooey. Most PC soundcard mic jacks use a standard TRS (three contact) jack with +5V on the ring contact to power the preamp in the mic. This is a completely different thing from +48V phantom power.
I never learned to touch-type properly either; I've been typing my way for over 30 years now. My speed and accuracy are both reasonably good in spite of my not typing the "right" way. I'll continue to type this way until I can't type any more, or until they invent a neural implant which renders typing obsolete.
Oh, and one more thing... if that neural implant doesn't materialize before I kick the bucket, they'll pry my buckling spring (Unicomp Model M clone) keyboard out of my cold dead hands...
"That's actually a very interesting point. Suppose you license some software to an organization under the GPL. The organization now has some of their employees work with the software. Does that constitute distribution? I.e. do these employees have a right to seeing the source code? What exactly is the definition of "ditribution"?"
Well, the organization certainly has the right to the source code, since you licensed it to them under the GPL. If they distribute it to anyone outside their organization, then they need to make the source code available in turn. It seems to me that if they only use the code internally, whether or not they give individual employees access to the source code is an internal matter. But IANAL, I could be mistaken.
I imagine the potential use of Open Source code further muddies the waters. If a contractor develops a sensitive military application derived from GPL-licensed code, and that application is subsequently widely deployed within the military, does that constitute "distribution" (i.e. does it mandate disclosure of the source code to anyone who asks for it)? Once you start dragging ITAR issues into it, things get even messier...
It all points back to the need to have a clear understanding up front of what is being "purchased". When it comes to third-party libraries, the contractor does not even have the option of legally transferring ownership, as they are owned by someone else.
So their patent is based on the ability to record one video stream while watching something else? Multi-tasking isn't exactly rocket science; computers have been doing it for decades. Furthermore, you could accomplish the same "time warping" effect as far back as the 1970s without even using a computer; all you needed was a VCR and an RF splitter.
IMO TiVo should not have been awarded this patent in the first place; it is yet another example of how the patent system in this country is broken.
You're not entitled to anything, they gave you the demo. As a business model it may not work out that well... but then again, it might. It is impossible to predict whether the number of people turned off by this tactic will be outweighed by the number of people it convinces to buy the full version.
Quite frankly, it is the patent troll aspect of it that bothers me more. Trialware software which disables certain features after the trial period expires is nothing new. Why should Sony be able to patent this idea?
If the car was a free demo, then yeah I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the stereo or A/C to stop working, or for the engine to refuse to start, after the demo period has expired.
A lot of you are missing one of the main points of the article, namely that there is typically a lot of pre-existing library code which gets used even when the application being developed is a one-off. While the client arguably has full rights to the custom part of the application, it is not sensible to transfer ownership of the generic library code.
Win98's a pretty extreme example, though people like that do exist. But you've apparently taken things to the opposite end of the spectrum -- anyone who values stability doesn't run "latest RC" versions of anything.
...where the site operator decided to block the entire country of Pakistan, in an attempt to get rid of a creepy cyberstalker who kept posting from Pakistani IPs. Shotgun approach!:D
(It didn't work; the guy just started using anonymous proxies located in other countries...)
There are very few situations where it would make sense for an end user to continue using IE6. The only one that occurs to me off the top of my head is if you're in the unenviable position of being stuck on Win2K, and relying on mission-critical Intranet applications which absolutely require IE. Even in this case, Firefox can be installed alongside IE6 (and would be a much safer choice for accessing the public Internet anyway). Given these factors, I think dropping IE6 support for a public web site (in the sense of no longer continuing to test changes to the site against IE6) is reasonable.
Dropping support for IE7 seems rather premature to me though; it still has a sizable installed base. Furthermore, its CSS implementation -- while still not perfect -- is much less broken than IE6's, so it requires less effort to ensure that pages render correctly in IE7.
No, I've done a fair bit of OOP (C++ and Python). The impossible-to-maintain systems I refer to are those created by those who aren't over that hurdle yet (or who, in spite of using an OO language, still have no idea how to properly factor or reuse code). I've occasionally been asked to debug or maintain code written by developers like that, and in almost all cases it is better to pave it flat and start over than to try and unravel the mess.
I tend to agree. While I find the quality of a lot of "production" code absolutely appalling, and would probably consider at least half of currently practicing "professional" programmers to be incompetent, licensing would be a nightmare. It is probably impossible to create objective licensing standards for software developers. The cure would be worse than the disease.
A system of compensation which provides commensurate rewards to developers who consistently create robust and bug-free code would help. That is difficult to implement too, because code quality and programmer productivity are hard to quantify in an objective way. I think we'd have a better shot at doing that than we would at creating a workable licensing system though.
"Amateur night" object oriented systems are impossible to maintain, and Sharepoint is a train wreck. But you're right - as non-programmers increasingly come to view software as "easy", it devalues the profession.
While I applaud the decision to focus on hardware which is Open Source friendly, this isn't exactly rocket science. Linux has matured to the point where odds are pretty good that any given system will function "out of the box", without resorting to proprietary drivers.
Full hardware acceleration on newer GPUs can still be problematic, of course. The Intel 950 -- while it is in fact relatively new -- isn't particularly current in terms of features or performance. So effectively we're still in a situation where we're settling for second-rate GPU performance, just to avoid the need for proprietary drivers. AMD/ATI's push to work more closely with the Open Source community is starting to bear fruit; I'm hopeful that we'll see better support for current GPUs going forward.
If it was a Facebook problem I think we would've also heard about it from people who don't have AT&T as their ISP. Though I tend to agree that Facebook isn't exactly the pinnacle of security best practices either...
Seems to me that the only reason https has not become more widespread already is the computational load it places on web servers and browsers, due to the encryption. Given that even mobile devices now have more CPU horsepower than a desktop system from the early days of the Web, it is high time that we move anything that involves even marginally sensitive data to a secure protocol.
This is sheer incompetence IMO. It is sad to see the organization which originally spawned Bell Labs -- arguably the most important private sector research organization the US has ever seen -- reduced to this. (Not to mention the fact that Lucent, nee Bell Labs, is now but a mere appendage to the French telecom operation Alcatel.)
I still don't see how you can get around the inverse square law, given that WiFi access points radiate in all directions. And even if you could achieve this alleged tight coupling, you'd create an entirely different problem: If most of the radiated WiFi energy is being siphoned off by this purported resonance mechanism, then the WiFi access point will cease to function as an access point, since anyone trying to actually use it as an access point will no longer be able to get any signal! So even it it could be made to work as you describe, it would effectively also be a WiFi jamming device.
Sure, wireless power transmission is possible. But in order for it to be practical it requires a purpose-built transmitter to beam the power at the device to be powered/charged. This thing claims to harvest ambient WiFi signals, which is blatant BS.
...highly refined snake oil! Just look at that sleek case!
There is no way this can work as described. The device itself isn't large enough to gather power at anything near the required rate (you'd need a sizeable antenna to do that). The internal leakage current of the rechargeable batteries it supposedly contains is probably greater than the amount of power it could gather; even disregarding this, it would take so long to charge from WiFi signals alone that it would not be useful.
Slashdot Mirror
Pretty much every motherboard I've bought in the past ~5 years has had a line in jack. Before you complain that the fidelity of onboard audio sucks, let me point out that it has gotten a lot better lately (at least on reputable brands like Asus). While onboard may still not be up to true high fidelity standards, it is "good enough" for the majority of non-professional use cases.
Actually, no it is not hooey. Most PC soundcard mic jacks use a standard TRS (three contact) jack with +5V on the ring contact to power the preamp in the mic. This is a completely different thing from +48V phantom power.
Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRS_connector#Computer_sound
I never learned to touch-type properly either; I've been typing my way for over 30 years now. My speed and accuracy are both reasonably good in spite of my not typing the "right" way. I'll continue to type this way until I can't type any more, or until they invent a neural implant which renders typing obsolete.
Oh, and one more thing... if that neural implant doesn't materialize before I kick the bucket, they'll pry my buckling spring (Unicomp Model M clone) keyboard out of my cold dead hands...
"That's actually a very interesting point. Suppose you license some software to an organization under the GPL. The organization now has some of their employees work with the software. Does that constitute distribution? I.e. do these employees have a right to seeing the source code? What exactly is the definition of "ditribution"?"
Well, the organization certainly has the right to the source code, since you licensed it to them under the GPL. If they distribute it to anyone outside their organization, then they need to make the source code available in turn. It seems to me that if they only use the code internally, whether or not they give individual employees access to the source code is an internal matter. But IANAL, I could be mistaken.
I imagine the potential use of Open Source code further muddies the waters. If a contractor develops a sensitive military application derived from GPL-licensed code, and that application is subsequently widely deployed within the military, does that constitute "distribution" (i.e. does it mandate disclosure of the source code to anyone who asks for it)? Once you start dragging ITAR issues into it, things get even messier...
It all points back to the need to have a clear understanding up front of what is being "purchased". When it comes to third-party libraries, the contractor does not even have the option of legally transferring ownership, as they are owned by someone else.
So their patent is based on the ability to record one video stream while watching something else? Multi-tasking isn't exactly rocket science; computers have been doing it for decades. Furthermore, you could accomplish the same "time warping" effect as far back as the 1970s without even using a computer; all you needed was a VCR and an RF splitter.
IMO TiVo should not have been awarded this patent in the first place; it is yet another example of how the patent system in this country is broken.
You're not entitled to anything, they gave you the demo. As a business model it may not work out that well... but then again, it might. It is impossible to predict whether the number of people turned off by this tactic will be outweighed by the number of people it convinces to buy the full version.
Quite frankly, it is the patent troll aspect of it that bothers me more. Trialware software which disables certain features after the trial period expires is nothing new. Why should Sony be able to patent this idea?
If the car was a free demo, then yeah I think it would be perfectly reasonable for the stereo or A/C to stop working, or for the engine to refuse to start, after the demo period has expired.
A lot of you are missing one of the main points of the article, namely that there is typically a lot of pre-existing library code which gets used even when the application being developed is a one-off. While the client arguably has full rights to the custom part of the application, it is not sensible to transfer ownership of the generic library code.
Win98's a pretty extreme example, though people like that do exist. But you've apparently taken things to the opposite end of the spectrum -- anyone who values stability doesn't run "latest RC" versions of anything.
...where the site operator decided to block the entire country of Pakistan, in an attempt to get rid of a creepy cyberstalker who kept posting from Pakistani IPs. Shotgun approach! :D
(It didn't work; the guy just started using anonymous proxies located in other countries...)
There are very few situations where it would make sense for an end user to continue using IE6. The only one that occurs to me off the top of my head is if you're in the unenviable position of being stuck on Win2K, and relying on mission-critical Intranet applications which absolutely require IE. Even in this case, Firefox can be installed alongside IE6 (and would be a much safer choice for accessing the public Internet anyway). Given these factors, I think dropping IE6 support for a public web site (in the sense of no longer continuing to test changes to the site against IE6) is reasonable.
Dropping support for IE7 seems rather premature to me though; it still has a sizable installed base. Furthermore, its CSS implementation -- while still not perfect -- is much less broken than IE6's, so it requires less effort to ensure that pages render correctly in IE7.
No, I've done a fair bit of OOP (C++ and Python). The impossible-to-maintain systems I refer to are those created by those who aren't over that hurdle yet (or who, in spite of using an OO language, still have no idea how to properly factor or reuse code). I've occasionally been asked to debug or maintain code written by developers like that, and in almost all cases it is better to pave it flat and start over than to try and unravel the mess.
I tend to agree. While I find the quality of a lot of "production" code absolutely appalling, and would probably consider at least half of currently practicing "professional" programmers to be incompetent, licensing would be a nightmare. It is probably impossible to create objective licensing standards for software developers. The cure would be worse than the disease.
A system of compensation which provides commensurate rewards to developers who consistently create robust and bug-free code would help. That is difficult to implement too, because code quality and programmer productivity are hard to quantify in an objective way. I think we'd have a better shot at doing that than we would at creating a workable licensing system though.
...unless you've moved into management, you're probably not making much more than those new graduates are, even if you have years of experience.
"Amateur night" object oriented systems are impossible to maintain, and Sharepoint is a train wreck. But you're right - as non-programmers increasingly come to view software as "easy", it devalues the profession.
The profits from selling of their shares will be considered income by the IRS, and taxed accordingly.
While I applaud the decision to focus on hardware which is Open Source friendly, this isn't exactly rocket science. Linux has matured to the point where odds are pretty good that any given system will function "out of the box", without resorting to proprietary drivers.
Full hardware acceleration on newer GPUs can still be problematic, of course. The Intel 950 -- while it is in fact relatively new -- isn't particularly current in terms of features or performance. So effectively we're still in a situation where we're settling for second-rate GPU performance, just to avoid the need for proprietary drivers. AMD/ATI's push to work more closely with the Open Source community is starting to bear fruit; I'm hopeful that we'll see better support for current GPUs going forward.
If it was a Facebook problem I think we would've also heard about it from people who don't have AT&T as their ISP. Though I tend to agree that Facebook isn't exactly the pinnacle of security best practices either...
Seems to me that the only reason https has not become more widespread already is the computational load it places on web servers and browsers, due to the encryption. Given that even mobile devices now have more CPU horsepower than a desktop system from the early days of the Web, it is high time that we move anything that involves even marginally sensitive data to a secure protocol.
This is sheer incompetence IMO. It is sad to see the organization which originally spawned Bell Labs -- arguably the most important private sector research organization the US has ever seen -- reduced to this. (Not to mention the fact that Lucent, nee Bell Labs, is now but a mere appendage to the French telecom operation Alcatel.)
I still don't see how you can get around the inverse square law, given that WiFi access points radiate in all directions. And even if you could achieve this alleged tight coupling, you'd create an entirely different problem: If most of the radiated WiFi energy is being siphoned off by this purported resonance mechanism, then the WiFi access point will cease to function as an access point, since anyone trying to actually use it as an access point will no longer be able to get any signal! So even it it could be made to work as you describe, it would effectively also be a WiFi jamming device.
Sure, wireless power transmission is possible. But in order for it to be practical it requires a purpose-built transmitter to beam the power at the device to be powered/charged. This thing claims to harvest ambient WiFi signals, which is blatant BS.
...highly refined snake oil! Just look at that sleek case!
There is no way this can work as described. The device itself isn't large enough to gather power at anything near the required rate (you'd need a sizeable antenna to do that). The internal leakage current of the rechargeable batteries it supposedly contains is probably greater than the amount of power it could gather; even disregarding this, it would take so long to charge from WiFi signals alone that it would not be useful.