I don't know what OTH means but in general the answer to your question depends on the criteria you want to measure "superior" by.
If you want to a one to many model for the cheapest price then broadcast/cablecast is the way to go. However, this gives a central point of control and they will choose programming that is lowest common denominator since that will be the most profitable. However if you want access to fringe programming then this will not be supported by the broadcast model. I doubt that it will be supported by streaming model since we don't have the bandwidth to support it in North America. It can be supported by a BitTorrent/download model, though.
You've hit on one of the key problems with video on the Internet.
For streaming to multiple users the server has to keep multiple streams open. The more popular your program is the more bandwidth you pay for.
For broadcasting (or cablecasting) the same signal can be received by multiple users at the same time. Turning on a second TV in your house doesn't double the "bandwidth" coming into your house. For cable there is probably some issue with loads as you add more devices but these can be rectified with amplifiers.
Re:Except Animals are more likely to be right.
on
Good Bad Attitude
·
· Score: 1
Incidently, why (I come from a family of engineers, so I don't intend to flame) do SO MANY engineers overestimate their own skill, and underestimate the 'real world' factors in their designs?
Maybe because they wouldn't get out of bed if they realized in advance how hard their project was going to be.
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Therefore, the subscription agreement is obviously outside the scope of the GPL. You are entitled access to beta versions of source in exchange for a fee and the agreement that you won't redistribute the code.
If you redistribute the code, your rights under the subscription agreement are terminated but your rights under the GPL are not. You are free to redistribute the code under the GPL but you are not entitled to any future versions under the subscription agreement. They are two different agreements. Your rights under the GPL don't release you from any obligations you agreed to under the subscription agreement.
I'm aware of that. That's why I don't buy my CD-R's at London Drugs.
Last time that I went to London Drugs, they had a sign explaining why it was more fair to break out the levy so that you are aware of the amount that the copyright levy is.
However, I think this is disingenuous. I think that it is a marketing ploy to allow them to advertise lower prices for their CD-R's.
Well, the copyright holders disagree with you (and the ISPs). They wanted the ISPs to pay but the ISPs didn't want to. In any dispute like this, the courts will get involved. Fortunately, they sided with the ISPs.
Second, you're right that anyone in the free/open source community knows he's full of it, but you'd be surprised how people who are told only one side of a story are likely to agree with that side. Those people will see two things: he makes an argument (which they will assume he has proof of), and we are not (officially) responding. (These people don't read Slashdot.) Our "brushing it off" looks to them like we have something to hide, just as KB is suggesting.
It is very unlikely that this is going to get much attention in the mainstream media. It is even less likely that people without a vested interest in this (one way or another) are going to care about this. Linux has only a vague presence in the mainstream mindset. People think it's a free operating system that competes with Microsoft. They don't know that much about it but they would probably think of it positively if asked about it.
In the worst case scenario, if it's found that this code is honest-to-god infringing, responsible community members will rewrite the areas that need to be rewritten, not that it will go underground and die or some such tripe.
This is the worst case scenario in a copyright infringement case. However, if Linux is found to be infringing a patent, the code will have to be removed completely from Linux. The only way it could be reinstated is if a licence fee is paid to SCO. Who is going to do that? You? Linus?
This isn't the whole prediction. It was actually a throw-away line after his actual prediction:
The SCO debacle has created a crisis within the Linux community. They pretend that it hasn't, but it has. This will come to a head in 2004 with either the development of a new organizational structure for Linux or the start of its demise.
But everyone seems to be ignoring this. He is basically saying that Linus' don't ask don't tell policy isn't working and has to be changed or Linux will become irrelevant.
At worst, GPL2 is declared invalid and code is forced into public domain.
If the GPL is declared invalid, then the code is then protected by copyright. The author of the code can (obviously) release the code into the public domain but it isn't automatically "forced" to happen.
The point is that we know that, given the right circumstances, life can evolve. It happened on earth, why not somewhere else? This is obviously not proof, but believing in extra-terrestrial life does not really equal belief in astrology which. As far as I know, has no foundation apart from 'esoteric' sources.
If an astrological prediction came true, would that prove that astrology was accurate? It happened before, why can't it happen again? My point is that belief in astrology and belief in extra-terrestrial intelligent life are both just that: beliefs.
Wrong. Try again. We have convincing evidence that life evolved on at least one planet.
Sorry. I should have said intelligent life.
The only planet that we know that has intelligent life is earth. Our solar system is a collection of coincidences that allow life. The earth is the precise distance from the sun to allow the kind of life that it does. It also has large planets outside of the earth's orbit to act as a shield against asteroids from outside the solar system. As far as I know, there haven't been any solar systems discovered, besides ours, with this structure.
My policy when I am in a dispute with someone is to always take the higher ground. If you always act with dignity and respect they can't discredit your argument by pointing at your tactics.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know what OTH means but in general the answer to your question depends on the criteria you want to measure "superior" by.
If you want to a one to many model for the cheapest price then broadcast/cablecast is the way to go. However, this gives a central point of control and they will choose programming that is lowest common denominator since that will be the most profitable. However if you want access to fringe programming then this will not be supported by the broadcast model. I doubt that it will be supported by streaming model since we don't have the bandwidth to support it in North America. It can be supported by a BitTorrent/download model, though.
You've hit on one of the key problems with video on the Internet.
For streaming to multiple users the server has to keep multiple streams open. The more popular your program is the more bandwidth you pay for.
For broadcasting (or cablecasting) the same signal can be received by multiple users at the same time. Turning on a second TV in your house doesn't double the "bandwidth" coming into your house. For cable there is probably some issue with loads as you add more devices but these can be rectified with amplifiers.
Or at all. This is the key dispute between India and Pakistan.
I believe this is more commonly known just as Kashmir. This territory is part of a well publicized dispute between Pakistan and India.
It's pretty much irrelevant. Unless you are going to sue them over $20, they can do whatever they like.
From the GPL:
Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope.
Therefore, the subscription agreement is obviously outside the scope of the GPL. You are entitled access to beta versions of source in exchange for a fee and the agreement that you won't redistribute the code.
If you redistribute the code, your rights under the subscription agreement are terminated but your rights under the GPL are not. You are free to redistribute the code under the GPL but you are not entitled to any future versions under the subscription agreement. They are two different agreements. Your rights under the GPL don't release you from any obligations you agreed to under the subscription agreement.
Here's Cringley's take on it.
I'm aware of that. That's why I don't buy my CD-R's at London Drugs.
Last time that I went to London Drugs, they had a sign explaining why it was more fair to break out the levy so that you are aware of the amount that the copyright levy is.
However, I think this is disingenuous. I think that it is a marketing ploy to allow them to advertise lower prices for their CD-R's.
London Drugs splits out the levy so it is paid at the till. I haven't seen any other retailers do this but there might be some.
Well, the copyright holders disagree with you (and the ISPs). They wanted the ISPs to pay but the ISPs didn't want to. In any dispute like this, the courts will get involved. Fortunately, they sided with the ISPs.
Second, you're right that anyone in the free/open source community knows he's full of it, but you'd be surprised how people who are told only one side of a story are likely to agree with that side. Those people will see two things: he makes an argument (which they will assume he has proof of), and we are not (officially) responding. (These people don't read Slashdot.) Our "brushing it off" looks to them like we have something to hide, just as KB is suggesting.
It is very unlikely that this is going to get much attention in the mainstream media. It is even less likely that people without a vested interest in this (one way or another) are going to care about this. Linux has only a vague presence in the mainstream mindset. People think it's a free operating system that competes with Microsoft. They don't know that much about it but they would probably think of it positively if asked about it.
In the worst case scenario, if it's found that this code is honest-to-god infringing, responsible community members will rewrite the areas that need to be rewritten, not that it will go underground and die or some such tripe.
This is the worst case scenario in a copyright infringement case. However, if Linux is found to be infringing a patent, the code will have to be removed completely from Linux. The only way it could be reinstated is if a licence fee is paid to SCO. Who is going to do that? You? Linus?
This isn't the whole prediction. It was actually a throw-away line after his actual prediction:
But everyone seems to be ignoring this. He is basically saying that Linus' don't ask don't tell policy isn't working and has to be changed or Linux will become irrelevant.
Why isn't TiVo (or ReplayTV) in Canada anyways?
At worst, GPL2 is declared invalid and code is forced into public domain.
If the GPL is declared invalid, then the code is then protected by copyright. The author of the code can (obviously) release the code into the public domain but it isn't automatically "forced" to happen.
The point is that we know that, given the right circumstances, life can evolve. It happened on earth, why not somewhere else?
This is obviously not proof, but believing in extra-terrestrial life does not really equal belief in astrology which. As far as I know, has no foundation apart from 'esoteric' sources.
If an astrological prediction came true, would that prove that astrology was accurate? It happened before, why can't it happen again? My point is that belief in astrology and belief in extra-terrestrial intelligent life are both just that: beliefs.
Wrong. Try again. We have convincing evidence that life evolved on at least one planet.
Sorry. I should have said intelligent life.
The only planet that we know that has intelligent life is earth. Our solar system is a collection of coincidences that allow life. The earth is the precise distance from the sun to allow the kind of life that it does. It also has large planets outside of the earth's orbit to act as a shield against asteroids from outside the solar system. As far as I know, there haven't been any solar systems discovered, besides ours, with this structure.
I think it's funny that Carl Sagan believed in life on other planets but not astrology. There's about the same amount of evidence for both.
Over here we have debit cards (with almost unlimited credit, which is interest free for two months).
Where is "here"?
... and sarcastic
My policy when I am in a dispute with someone is to always take the higher ground. If you always act with dignity and respect they can't discredit your argument by pointing at your tactics.
Do you have a link regarding this Australian suit?
So you're opposed to spam but not terrorism? Or vice versa?
Any generalizations are bad, no matter what you're talking about.
Including that one?
The FSF would be fools to force such an issue.
Actually, since the FSF isn't the copyright holder of the Linux kernel, there's not much they can do anyway.
Who would sue them? Linus?
What would the damages be for distributing a free operating system?