As opposed to Nokia, whose 3G N95 comes with a free SDK (gcc based), POSIX librarys and most of the necessary open source librarys ported by Nokia themselves.
The N-Gage along with other N-series phones are S60 i.e. Symbian i.e. Epoc32 i.e CPP/C/Asm are all fine. In fact Nokia has recently release POSIX complaint C librarys so porting is easy.
Unlike the DS the SDKs are also free and you can install new apps over the air (or via trusty USB mass storage).
The newer models trounce the DS in resolution (yes counting both screens), processor power, and memory. And I am willing to wager quite a lot the successor to the N95 will have a touchscreen.
With 400Mhz FSB and 128 KiB L1 and L2 they have compromised, but they are more Pentium-M then 286.
The companion North/South bridge chips are even better, with integrated video, network, memory, sata, and hardware MPEG2/4 acceleration for a couple of watts more. You could have a responsive desktop system including memory, video, network etc. etc running ~10W full load (So long as you don't spin up the hard disk). Couple that with very aggressive power saving and your idle is going to be low.
Unless you happen to be recording at 44.1kHz/16bit mono/stereo CDs aren't lossless either.
DVD-Audio (6 (full) channels at 24bit and up to 192kHz (though not all at once)) can max out my home system and/or ears but I am happy to buy 256K+ AAC's for my mobile phone.
I also think that the lossy compression on (well done) DTS mixed still give better then CD sound, but that may be down to personal taste.
Cell towers emit radiation in three dimensions (okay the should be some attenuation for hight but you don't want to cut out every time you walk upstairs). This means their radiation follows the inverse-square law. Double the transmitters you half the distance between transmitters, so you quarter their power. Giving you a net reduction of 50%.
The phones actually adapt their signal strength so you get an even bigger effect (50% less power at the edge of reception, but also an average of 50% less time at the edge of reception).
You are much more likly to find software that will work on two computers with different distros, then can work on two different processor architectures running the same distro. Should all x86 have been chucked out as soon as AMD64 came out, or should we not have allowed any progress?
All a distro is a group of experts configuring software to meet common use patterns. The only alternatives are:
- requiring all users to become experts and setup their own software from scratch, - or trying to eliminate all choice (So MS are already breaking the rules including Notepad AND Wordpad, and trying to sell Word is taking the piss).
Earth has 1,250,000 species of animal. This is obviously a bad thing, and we should limit this to just 1 or 2 for the greater good!
Yes some Linux distros are a bit pointless, a fair few are redundant and some serve a niche that doesn't exist. But we actually need a large number of distros suited for different environments and in each niche the needs to be some competition to ensure quality.
A small list of niches off the top of my head: Ideological (Debian) Source based (Gentoo) Business Server (RHEL, SUSE Server) Business Desktop (RedHat, SUSE Desktop) Home (Ubuntu, Linspire) LiveCD (Knoppix, Morphix) Router (LEAF, FREESCO) Specialist (Musix, GNUstep) Localised (Red Flag, this is really a whole extra dimension with server/desktop distros etc. needed for each local).
And that doesn't take into accounts preferences like Gnome/KDE, architecture, stable/bleading edge, security/easy of use etc, all of which can effect distro choice in any of the categories above.
IIRC Doom had modem based two player (can't recall if you could do more then two, but who had two modems back then). Also its four player IPX networking could have been routed over IP even then.
Obviously later versions have added native TCP (it is still played today).
I think arguing that a trained expert can easily tell the difference rather proves the point.
Lots of staff working in jewelry shops have to rely on testing thermal conductance, few can tell the difference by eye (allowing for the huge variation in the appearance of diamonds anyway). If your car sales man couldn't tell the difference between a BMW and a Scoda by eye, would you buy a car from them? (And it could be argued that at least with a car its primary purpose isn't aesthetic).
However this doesn't translate into other uses. I am not easily able to tell salt from sugar by eye, however I am not arguing they are interchangeable in most recipes. The fact that C and CZ look the same dose not make they suitable for the same engineering applications.
DreamWorks are also very pro Open Source, they use Linux workstations and have repeatedly asked Adobe to release a Linux version of Photoshop (though it was Disney who eventually paid to get Photoshop working under WINE).
The point was more likely that IBM cut 13,000 jobs last year and DreamWorks is surviving because of one smelly ogre.
However as IBM and DreamWork's main competitors also use and support Linux it was a fairly week point.
Nvidia have added some hardware primarily for physics to their newest graphics cards along with some driver support for using the GPU for more then graphics (as have ATI).
Nvidia also released bunch of press about Havok's FX. This is an add-on to the most popular game physics engine that offloads processing onto modern GPUs (current reports indicate it works much better on ATI cards, so Nvidia probably isn't shouting quit so load now).
However I don't think Havok have ported FX to consoles (where there physics library is extensively used). This seems extremely odd as it is entirely Shader Model 3.0 based and should work more or less unmodified. I assume this implies that console performance is entirely bottlenecked on their GPUs and the are literally no games that would benefit from this.
But the big difference is that the GPLv3 only licenses copying. If you are just using Samba inside your organization you are not bound by its terms. Microsoft believes the EULA licenses your use of the software.
I agree you your concerns about the GLPv3's PR impact, but the choice is:
Use software where you do not like the terms you would have to agree to if you modified and redistributed it, or
Use software where you have to agree to terms you do not like to install it, and you can not modify or redistribute it under any terms.
It may not be a step forward but it hardly makes Microsoft an attractive alternative.
Actually I think they are asking if you could release code as "GPLv3 only" before the GPLv3 was published.
"GPLv2, or later" allows anybody, MS included, to chose "GPLv2" and ignore anything written in the GPLv3 license.
IANAL, but my guess is releasing your code as GPLv4 only would be the same thing as not releasing it till the GPLv4 was published.
The current conversation is based on the (highly likely) premise that Novel will put GPLv3 code in SUSE before MS shifts all their licenses. This is speculation but it is almost guaranteed given the amount of SUSE userland owned by the FSF.
Still doesn't clarify if the digital-to-analogue step is happening in the players (i.e. they are hooked up with 6 phono leads) or the amp (i.e. hooked up with a digital fiber-optic cable).
Your Lazerdisc player probably cost (a lot) more then your DVD players, if they are doing the conversion they may be the problem.
Can't be sure, AC3 does support different bit rates, but DVD's 448kbit/s is better then the 320kbit/s they used on 35mm film in theatres, so it is unlikely laserdiscs were much better.
The most likely cause is that you are using different quality decoders. The conversion of AC3 back into analogue defiantly depends on the quality of your equipment.
If you are using the same decoder for both sources, then it will be because AC3 was a major selling point when it was introduced on laserdics so they put some serious effort into making it sound good. It is really just a box they have to check on DVD's so they may spend less time on it.
Accurately maybe, but the targeting isn't that fast. At 4,000MPH and 100,000feet you would only need a device that can rotate at 3.36 degrees a second.
Wasn't Carmageddon simply censored in the UK, replacing pedestrians with zombies? It still got a successful release.
I seem to remember that overturning the ban and releasing the official 'blood' patch was something of a anticlimax, as the original game was considerable less gory then the unofficial patches everyone had downloaded in the mean time. (Images of real people, grannies with zima-frames, babies, naked girls etc.)
DVDs usually have 5.1 or more channels of sound. Simply turn up the center channel and you will find the majority of the voices stand out far more clearly.
Note this works especially well if you are only using two speakers, as the DVD player is still having to downmix form the surround sound and they nearly always over emphases the Left/Right front channels instead of the center.
DVD sound is one of the few things where they don't aim to the lowest common denominator. If you have a player/tv/amp that doesn't allow you to adjust the surround balance you can be sure that your setup isn't playing the sound anything like correctly.
You seem to be asking this backwards. Blender is a 3d animation package with a simply game engine thrown in. It is far more suited to doing an animated film then a machinima toolkit on top of a game engine.
The huge difference though is it doesn't include all the models and textures you would find in a game. You can find a lot on the net, but you are not going to get the cohesive art design of a commercial game without a lot more work.
This is one of the goals of their 'Open source' films and games, building up a library of resources you can reuse in your own work.
Slashdot Mirror
Both the grace period and the time-stamped fall-back rely on the hacker telling windows the correct time.
http://slashdot.org/articles/07/08/29/2041244.shtm l
Not exactly a 'hack', but we all knew the touch screen was coming.
As opposed to Nokia, whose 3G N95 comes with a free SDK (gcc based), POSIX librarys and most of the necessary open source librarys ported by Nokia themselves.
The N-Gage along with other N-series phones are S60 i.e. Symbian i.e. Epoc32 i.e CPP/C/Asm are all fine. In fact Nokia has recently release POSIX complaint C librarys so porting is easy.
Unlike the DS the SDKs are also free and you can install new apps over the air (or via trusty USB mass storage).
The newer models trounce the DS in resolution (yes counting both screens), processor power, and memory. And I am willing to wager quite a lot the successor to the N95 will have a touchscreen.
i686 + MMX + SSE1-3 + NX + some hardware cryptography.
With 400Mhz FSB and 128 KiB L1 and L2 they have compromised, but they are more Pentium-M then 286.
The companion North/South bridge chips are even better, with integrated video, network, memory, sata, and hardware MPEG2/4 acceleration for a couple of watts more. You could have a responsive desktop system including memory, video, network etc. etc running ~10W full load (So long as you don't spin up the hard disk). Couple that with very aggressive power saving and your idle is going to be low.
Unless you happen to be recording at 44.1kHz/16bit mono/stereo CDs aren't lossless either.
DVD-Audio (6 (full) channels at 24bit and up to 192kHz (though not all at once)) can max out my home system and/or ears but I am happy to buy 256K+ AAC's for my mobile phone.
I also think that the lossy compression on (well done) DTS mixed still give better then CD sound, but that may be down to personal taste.
Cell towers emit radiation in three dimensions (okay the should be some attenuation for hight but you don't want to cut out every time you walk upstairs). This means their radiation follows the inverse-square law. Double the transmitters you half the distance between transmitters, so you quarter their power. Giving you a net reduction of 50%.
The phones actually adapt their signal strength so you get an even bigger effect (50% less power at the edge of reception, but also an average of 50% less time at the edge of reception).
You are much more likly to find software that will work on two computers with different distros, then can work on two different processor architectures running the same distro. Should all x86 have been chucked out as soon as AMD64 came out, or should we not have allowed any progress?
All a distro is a group of experts configuring software to meet common use patterns. The only alternatives are:
- requiring all users to become experts and setup their own software from scratch,
- or trying to eliminate all choice (So MS are already breaking the rules including Notepad AND Wordpad, and trying to sell Word is taking the piss).
Earth has 1,250,000 species of animal. This is obviously a bad thing, and we should limit this to just 1 or 2 for the greater good!
Yes some Linux distros are a bit pointless, a fair few are redundant and some serve a niche that doesn't exist. But we actually need a large number of distros suited for different environments and in each niche the needs to be some competition to ensure quality.
A small list of niches off the top of my head:
Ideological (Debian)
Source based (Gentoo)
Business Server (RHEL, SUSE Server)
Business Desktop (RedHat, SUSE Desktop)
Home (Ubuntu, Linspire)
LiveCD (Knoppix, Morphix)
Router (LEAF, FREESCO)
Specialist (Musix, GNUstep)
Localised (Red Flag, this is really a whole extra dimension with server/desktop distros etc. needed for each local).
And that doesn't take into accounts preferences like Gnome/KDE, architecture, stable/bleading edge, security/easy of use etc, all of which can effect distro choice in any of the categories above.
In the ocean?
34,000/361,000,000~=0.01%
IIRC Doom had modem based two player (can't recall if you could do more then two, but who had two modems back then). Also its four player IPX networking could have been routed over IP even then.
Obviously later versions have added native TCP (it is still played today).
I think arguing that a trained expert can easily tell the difference rather proves the point.
Lots of staff working in jewelry shops have to rely on testing thermal conductance, few can tell the difference by eye (allowing for the huge variation in the appearance of diamonds anyway). If your car sales man couldn't tell the difference between a BMW and a Scoda by eye, would you buy a car from them? (And it could be argued that at least with a car its primary purpose isn't aesthetic).
However this doesn't translate into other uses. I am not easily able to tell salt from sugar by eye, however I am not arguing they are interchangeable in most recipes. The fact that C and CZ look the same dose not make they suitable for the same engineering applications.
DreamWorks are also very pro Open Source, they use Linux workstations and have repeatedly asked Adobe to release a Linux version of Photoshop (though it was Disney who eventually paid to get Photoshop working under WINE).
The point was more likely that IBM cut 13,000 jobs last year and DreamWorks is surviving because of one smelly ogre.
However as IBM and DreamWork's main competitors also use and support Linux it was a fairly week point.
I think that getting Google to do their job for them, would probably count as a 'benefit'.
Not to mention a certain deep pocketed organization may pay their new consumer-protection officers more then the government.
Nvidia have added some hardware primarily for physics to their newest graphics cards along with some driver support for using the GPU for more then graphics (as have ATI). Nvidia also released bunch of press about Havok's FX. This is an add-on to the most popular game physics engine that offloads processing onto modern GPUs (current reports indicate it works much better on ATI cards, so Nvidia probably isn't shouting quit so load now). However I don't think Havok have ported FX to consoles (where there physics library is extensively used). This seems extremely odd as it is entirely Shader Model 3.0 based and should work more or less unmodified. I assume this implies that console performance is entirely bottlenecked on their GPUs and the are literally no games that would benefit from this.
But the big difference is that the GPLv3 only licenses copying. If you are just using Samba inside your organization you are not bound by its terms. Microsoft believes the EULA licenses your use of the software.
I agree you your concerns about the GLPv3's PR impact, but the choice is:
Use software where you do not like the terms you would have to agree to if you modified and redistributed it, or
Use software where you have to agree to terms you do not like to install it, and you can not modify or redistribute it under any terms.
It may not be a step forward but it hardly makes Microsoft an attractive alternative.
We are not all Americans!
Seriously my network doesn't support non-3G phones, not that I would want to go back anyway.
No - the GPL is far too clear, it is very unlikely you will ever find a violator stupid enough to court, they will always settle.
Actually I think they are asking if you could release code as "GPLv3 only" before the GPLv3 was published.
"GPLv2, or later" allows anybody, MS included, to chose "GPLv2" and ignore anything written in the GPLv3 license.
IANAL, but my guess is releasing your code as GPLv4 only would be the same thing as not releasing it till the GPLv4 was published.
The current conversation is based on the (highly likely) premise that Novel will put GPLv3 code in SUSE before MS shifts all their licenses. This is speculation but it is almost guaranteed given the amount of SUSE userland owned by the FSF.
Still doesn't clarify if the digital-to-analogue step is happening in the players (i.e. they are hooked up with 6 phono leads) or the amp (i.e. hooked up with a digital fiber-optic cable). Your Lazerdisc player probably cost (a lot) more then your DVD players, if they are doing the conversion they may be the problem.
Can't be sure, AC3 does support different bit rates, but DVD's 448kbit/s is better then the 320kbit/s they used on 35mm film in theatres, so it is unlikely laserdiscs were much better.
The most likely cause is that you are using different quality decoders. The conversion of AC3 back into analogue defiantly depends on the quality of your equipment.
If you are using the same decoder for both sources, then it will be because AC3 was a major selling point when it was introduced on laserdics so they put some serious effort into making it sound good. It is really just a box they have to check on DVD's so they may spend less time on it.
Accurately maybe, but the targeting isn't that fast. At 4,000MPH and 100,000feet you would only need a device that can rotate at 3.36 degrees a second.
4,000MPH = 1788.16m/s
100,000 feet = 30480m
arctan(1788.16/30480) = 3.35747538 degrees/s
In fact you only need to rotate 90 degrees a second to track something travailing at the speed of light from that distance.
Not sure what stops them adding some nice chrome effect panelling though.
Wasn't Carmageddon simply censored in the UK, replacing pedestrians with zombies? It still got a successful release.
I seem to remember that overturning the ban and releasing the official 'blood' patch was something of a anticlimax, as the original game was considerable less gory then the unofficial patches everyone had downloaded in the mean time. (Images of real people, grannies with zima-frames, babies, naked girls etc.)
This is usually something you can fix yourself:
DVDs usually have 5.1 or more channels of sound. Simply turn up the center channel and you will find the majority of the voices stand out far more clearly.
Note this works especially well if you are only using two speakers, as the DVD player is still having to downmix form the surround sound and they nearly always over emphases the Left/Right front channels instead of the center.
DVD sound is one of the few things where they don't aim to the lowest common denominator. If you have a player/tv/amp that doesn't allow you to adjust the surround balance you can be sure that your setup isn't playing the sound anything like correctly.
You seem to be asking this backwards. Blender is a 3d animation package with a simply game engine thrown in. It is far more suited to doing an animated film then a machinima toolkit on top of a game engine.
The huge difference though is it doesn't include all the models and textures you would find in a game. You can find a lot on the net, but you are not going to get the cohesive art design of a commercial game without a lot more work.
This is one of the goals of their 'Open source' films and games, building up a library of resources you can reuse in your own work.