Right. I mean, who would think of using firewire for video applications. It's not like digital camcorders have firewire ports...
Seriously, though, digital camcorders make up the bulk of firewire-connected electronic devices. Why hamstring their performance under the auspices of a service pack? I'm sure the fix makes other things speedier while firewire transfers are going on, but at the expense of the transfer itself? Why?
At a basic level, the "invert" switch on some amps can help...for low-range drivers that or switching the polarity is usually all you need to make things right, but relatively minor phase shifts in upper-midrange and high-range audio signals can completely subvert an attempt at accurate sound reproduction, especially if you're working with more than just a stereo signal and are in tight quarters (short audio path-lengths all around).
Getting the same soundstage in a vehicle that you have in an average home listening room usually requires a lot more effort and precision.
You are confusing audiophiles and bass-heads, I think.
There are some people who like audio and physics equally well, or else we'd have a lot crappier audio reproduction gear. It's not created by magic, but by the proper application of physics.
Oh, don't forget to use a micrometer to set the distance from each speaker to your ear to make sure the sound waves arrive at the right time.
Well, not with a micrometer, but I'd definitely try to make sure that the speakers were as close to the same distance from my head as I could manage. You sound like you're more of a physicist than an audiophile, but if you ever cross over, your condescension on this topic might evaporate slightly.
Thank you, Gumbi...nice to see that some people don't have to just pretend that they understand.
To the angstrom-measurer...have you ever tried to set up a quality sound system in a vehicle? Can you imagine how difficult it makes things when you have to account for phase-shift in the cabling as well as from differences in path-length between sound source and ears?
Recording and video studios don't tend to use Monster cable because they also don't tend to use RCA cables to patch things together. Too easy for noise to get into the signal path. They tend to use balanced lines so that any noise can be self-cancelling (if you're interested, google "balanced line driver"...that ought to give a few hints).
The wire you find inside your speakers is specifically designed to maintain it's form, take high heat, and/or lie flat (for the wire wrapped around the former), or to be flexible enough not to come apart (for the wires going from the terminals to the cone/voicecoil). They're typically made much differently from speaker cable.
If you want to talk to people that know more than a little about pricey cabling (rca cables, at least) talk to a reputable car stereo shop. Home theater environments have only a tiny fraction of the shielding, grounding, impedance-matching, and noise problems that automotive applications do.
Most of the expensive home theater cables are shortened or rebranded versions of ones that were developed for automotive use. Noise rejection characteristics, signal path length (both parts of the path being equal), shielding type, and overall cable quality (fit, insulation, solder joint quality, etc) are all part of what makes expensive cables cost as much as they do.
If you're hooking up a TV and a DVD player with connectors 3 feet apart, most of the design features of the expensive cables will be unnecessary simply because there won't be that much chance for noise to enter into the picture. If you have preamps, amps, multiple sources, multiple grounds, noise sources, long cables, etc. the expensive stuff just might make everything work better.
And what about distributors who don't offer anonymous downloads for free? What if the product in question is only available in retail outlets? That's perfectly acceptable under the GPL as long as people who bought the product can get the source mailed to them for only the cost of the media and the shipping.
Linksys would have been well within their rights under the GPL to have said the source for the code on the WRT54G would only be made available to those who actually have one of the routers (proof-of-purchase off the box, itemized receipt, register the S/N, etc).
I'm not sure that's correct. There are a number of different conditions in the GPL. The one covering modification says (sec 2b)
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
It doesn't say that applies to all of *your* licensees, it says that aplpies to all third parties, which would be everyone who isn't either you, your company, or the author/copyright holder of the original work. So, you don't get to pick and choose who gets to use it.
As for distribution, the GPL says (sec 3):
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, section 3b says that anyone at (all third parties...not just people who bought a router) all can get the source code for no more than the cost of burning it to CD and mailing it, or the cost of the bandwidth needed to download it.
Your first paragraph was pretty much correct, but your second one missed the mark, I think.
Are you really that unfamiliar with different ways to quote words? Here are a couple of common ones that apply in this instance. I will show them to you so you don't get confused again.
*word* is equivalent to word. On a system with no facility to produce fonts of differing weights, quoting the word with asterisks shows emphasis in place of what would otherwise be bold text.
'word' is equivalent to <sarcasm>word</sarcasm>. In a conversation where facial expressions and inflection are not available, the <sarcasm> tag or single quotes are often used to convey a sarcastic tone.
</rant>
Now you should be able to differentiate between the two. Next!
Since we're talking pricing, here's the part that made me shake my head.
Pearlman said that Pfohl misunderstood the idea. Then again, another record-industry type, casually speaking to Pearlman after the talk, had perhaps the most succinct counter suggestion. Why not charge 10 cents, instead of 5, and double the revenue?
This kind of stupidity is the reason that the music industry is in trouble today. Serious PHB-syndrome seems to be rampant in the companies that make up the RIAA/MPAA.
It's especially not a problem because working around it doesn't look hard at all. You can do everything they do in the patent, for example, ommitting any intermediary code (P-Code), and you apparently wouldn't be violating it.
That's all I need to know. Grant them the patent immediately.
For that matter; the patent's main application is for files with multiple entry points and scanning specifically for polymorphic viruses using a scripting engine capable of handling different pieces of code off to different analysis engines and passing things around.
...okay. Let's think this through. Do any other AV vendors work on files with multiple entry points? Do any others scan for polymorphic viruses? Is it a no-brainer to use code to determine which analysis engine should deal with something in there?
Here's the problem...strip away the antivirus stuff, because other companies do that already. What you have being patented is the actual use of a scripting engine to direct a program to do stuff. I can think of one or two examples of that that would probably qualify as prior art; cron, asp, php, cgi...
If that doesn't fail the non-obviousness test, I don't know what does.
Of course, if the judges disagree, I'll have to write a news aggregator in ASP and patent it.
I personally blame Donkey Kong...ever since Mario started swinging that hammer willy-nilly, things have gone downhill.
One wonders how it's possible that Wile E Coyote didn't inspire a generation or two to kill birds with large amounts of explosives. Apparently kids today are more impressionable, or maybe judges are getting stupider. It's quite the mystery...
You think the RIAA members that are currently railing about gazillions of dollars in lost sales really know the right way to make money?
I'll agree that they know how to overcharge, but that only lasts so long before people find a way to get stuff cheaper another way. 15 year olds might fork over $30.00 for Britney, but 18 year olds will find "New Britney Spears - High Quality" online and bypass the corporate coffers. They're screwing themselves again. Mark my words. This too, shall pass (higher download prices)...either that, or people will flock back to pirated material.
No, I didn't (miss economics)...I base my assumption (that they're stupid) on their track record with attempting to sell music via another distribution channel and screwing it up royally.
I guess that if you think $12-$20 for a CD is a sensible price point, you might not get it, but I'm standing by my rant. A buck a track is a reasonable price, to me...since I don't have to buy a bunch of crap that got in as filler.
More than that means I don't buy the tracks...it becomes worth the effort to maybe sift through a gnutella-based network to find what I want, sometimes. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people who feel the same way, so I think that the idea of raising the price is particularly bereft of fiscal forethought.
"Oh no! They're buying lots and lots and lots of music! Raise the price and stop them, stop them now!"
These are the same people who are trying to say that piracy is the reason that they're not making wads of cash? Did they miss the whole supply/demand/equilibrium price part of economics class in high school (okay, some of them may have gone to college).
Let's see. We have a product that is being sold at a price point that has people drooling, there are very low distribution costs, no need for shipping or inventory maintenance, and people can buy from home. Sounds good...*too* good...let's raise the prices and kill it off.
A patent is a time-limited monopoly on the ability to produce a particular thing, granted for some technical innovation that has not been seen before. It's meant to protect inventors from others swooping in and reverse engineering the fruits of their labors and then taking away their reward. Pretty stupid when applied to software. Anyway...
Copyright is a legal idea that says the author of a creative work (much more applicable to software) has the right to control who may or may not copy or distribute that work for a limited time. It sets limits on what others may do, but allows copyright holders to grant additional rights if they choose. The GPL is an example of authors choosing to grant rights that copyright normally restricts, in exchange for any improvements to the original work.
Of course, since copyright is extended every time certain works reach an age where they are perilously close to becoming public domain, the "limited time" portion of the definition (in the US, anyway) is a bit of a farce.
Anybody with a better handle on this, feel free to correct me.
Slashdot Mirror
Now *that* is frigging hilarious...somebody at MSN search is asleep at the wheel letting that one fly.
You owe me a new keyboard...bastard.
Seriously, though, digital camcorders make up the bulk of firewire-connected electronic devices. Why hamstring their performance under the auspices of a service pack? I'm sure the fix makes other things speedier while firewire transfers are going on, but at the expense of the transfer itself? Why?
At a basic level, the "invert" switch on some amps can help...for low-range drivers that or switching the polarity is usually all you need to make things right, but relatively minor phase shifts in upper-midrange and high-range audio signals can completely subvert an attempt at accurate sound reproduction, especially if you're working with more than just a stereo signal and are in tight quarters (short audio path-lengths all around).
Getting the same soundstage in a vehicle that you have in an average home listening room usually requires a lot more effort and precision.
There are some people who like audio and physics equally well, or else we'd have a lot crappier audio reproduction gear. It's not created by magic, but by the proper application of physics.
Well, not with a micrometer, but I'd definitely try to make sure that the speakers were as close to the same distance from my head as I could manage. You sound like you're more of a physicist than an audiophile, but if you ever cross over, your condescension on this topic might evaporate slightly.
To the angstrom-measurer...have you ever tried to set up a quality sound system in a vehicle? Can you imagine how difficult it makes things when you have to account for phase-shift in the cabling as well as from differences in path-length between sound source and ears?
Recording and video studios don't tend to use Monster cable because they also don't tend to use RCA cables to patch things together. Too easy for noise to get into the signal path. They tend to use balanced lines so that any noise can be self-cancelling (if you're interested, google "balanced line driver"...that ought to give a few hints).
The wire you find inside your speakers is specifically designed to maintain it's form, take high heat, and/or lie flat (for the wire wrapped around the former), or to be flexible enough not to come apart (for the wires going from the terminals to the cone/voicecoil). They're typically made much differently from speaker cable.
If you want to talk to people that know more than a little about pricey cabling (rca cables, at least) talk to a reputable car stereo shop. Home theater environments have only a tiny fraction of the shielding, grounding, impedance-matching, and noise problems that automotive applications do.
Most of the expensive home theater cables are shortened or rebranded versions of ones that were developed for automotive use. Noise rejection characteristics, signal path length (both parts of the path being equal), shielding type, and overall cable quality (fit, insulation, solder joint quality, etc) are all part of what makes expensive cables cost as much as they do.
If you're hooking up a TV and a DVD player with connectors 3 feet apart, most of the design features of the expensive cables will be unnecessary simply because there won't be that much chance for noise to enter into the picture. If you have preamps, amps, multiple sources, multiple grounds, noise sources, long cables, etc. the expensive stuff just might make everything work better.
Yeah, but you're an anonymous asshole, at least.
Linksys would have been well within their rights under the GPL to have said the source for the code on the WRT54G would only be made available to those who actually have one of the routers (proof-of-purchase off the box, itemized receipt, register the S/N, etc).
I'm not sure that's correct. There are a number of different conditions in the GPL. The one covering modification says (sec 2b)
"You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License."
It doesn't say that applies to all of *your* licensees, it says that aplpies to all third parties, which would be everyone who isn't either you, your company, or the author/copyright holder of the original work. So, you don't get to pick and choose who gets to use it.
As for distribution, the GPL says (sec 3):
"3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
So, section 3b says that anyone at (all third parties...not just people who bought a router) all can get the source code for no more than the cost of burning it to CD and mailing it, or the cost of the bandwidth needed to download it.
Your first paragraph was pretty much correct, but your second one missed the mark, I think.
I'd always read caps as ANGRY, but splats (asterisks) as *emphatic*. Everybody reads things differently, I guess.
Are you really that unfamiliar with different ways to quote words? Here are a couple of common ones that apply in this instance. I will show them to you so you don't get confused again.
*word* is equivalent to word. On a system with no facility to produce fonts of differing weights, quoting the word with asterisks shows emphasis in place of what would otherwise be bold text.
'word' is equivalent to <sarcasm>word</sarcasm>. In a conversation where facial expressions and inflection are not available, the <sarcasm> tag or single quotes are often used to convey a sarcastic tone.
</rant>Now you should be able to differentiate between the two. Next!
I salute your pedantry, though.
you say "it doesn't work for me"
he says "you don't have the right codec, try this"
you say "umm, excuse me, I have everything I need"
he says "fine, I won't help you, it works for me with the codec I just suggested"
you say "you're an asshole".
you honestly think *he* is being an asshole?
Pearlman said that Pfohl misunderstood the idea. Then again, another record-industry type, casually speaking to Pearlman after the talk, had perhaps the most succinct counter suggestion. Why not charge 10 cents, instead of 5, and double the revenue?
This kind of stupidity is the reason that the music industry is in trouble today. Serious PHB-syndrome seems to be rampant in the companies that make up the RIAA/MPAA.
That's all I need to know. Grant them the patent immediately.
For that matter; the patent's main application is for files with multiple entry points and scanning specifically for polymorphic viruses using a scripting engine capable of handling different pieces of code off to different analysis engines and passing things around.
...okay. Let's think this through. Do any other AV vendors work on files with multiple entry points? Do any others scan for polymorphic viruses? Is it a no-brainer to use code to determine which analysis engine should deal with something in there?
Here's the problem...strip away the antivirus stuff, because other companies do that already. What you have being patented is the actual use of a scripting engine to direct a program to do stuff. I can think of one or two examples of that that would probably qualify as prior art; cron, asp, php, cgi...
If that doesn't fail the non-obviousness test, I don't know what does.
Of course, if the judges disagree, I'll have to write a news aggregator in ASP and patent it.
One wonders how it's possible that Wile E Coyote didn't inspire a generation or two to kill birds with large amounts of explosives. Apparently kids today are more impressionable, or maybe judges are getting stupider. It's quite the mystery...
You owe me a keyboard, dammit.
"Trollin'...trollin'...trollin' on the riiivaaah!"
I'll agree that they know how to overcharge, but that only lasts so long before people find a way to get stuff cheaper another way. 15 year olds might fork over $30.00 for Britney, but 18 year olds will find "New Britney Spears - High Quality" online and bypass the corporate coffers. They're screwing themselves again. Mark my words. This too, shall pass (higher download prices)...either that, or people will flock back to pirated material.
I guess that if you think $12-$20 for a CD is a sensible price point, you might not get it, but I'm standing by my rant. A buck a track is a reasonable price, to me...since I don't have to buy a bunch of crap that got in as filler.
More than that means I don't buy the tracks...it becomes worth the effort to maybe sift through a gnutella-based network to find what I want, sometimes. I'm willing to bet that there are a lot of people who feel the same way, so I think that the idea of raising the price is particularly bereft of fiscal forethought.
These are the same people who are trying to say that piracy is the reason that they're not making wads of cash? Did they miss the whole supply/demand/equilibrium price part of economics class in high school (okay, some of them may have gone to college).
Let's see. We have a product that is being sold at a price point that has people drooling, there are very low distribution costs, no need for shipping or inventory maintenance, and people can buy from home. Sounds good...*too* good...let's raise the prices and kill it off.
asshats.
Copyright is a legal idea that says the author of a creative work (much more applicable to software) has the right to control who may or may not copy or distribute that work for a limited time. It sets limits on what others may do, but allows copyright holders to grant additional rights if they choose. The GPL is an example of authors choosing to grant rights that copyright normally restricts, in exchange for any improvements to the original work.
Of course, since copyright is extended every time certain works reach an age where they are perilously close to becoming public domain, the "limited time" portion of the definition (in the US, anyway) is a bit of a farce.
Anybody with a better handle on this, feel free to correct me.
Who's the humorless ass that modded me troll?
Quit watching Star Wars...yoda is screwing up your diction, man (I'd say "or woman", but chicks just don't watch that much Star Wars).