Wow! Someone else who could use XvMC. My aging Athlon XP 2400+ has trouble keeping up with 1080i MPEG-2 broadcast streams.
AFAIK, XvMC will never be implemented on any of the Radeons because they're going to move to the Gallium3D framework. Or they might go to VA API. Or something else entirely.
That's the problem: there are too many "solutions" to do hardware offloading for MPEG-2/4. There is no consensus about which to use, so no one is going to implement any of them.
Of course, this is because a computer program cannot know if what you are doing is copyright infringement or fair use because the line between the two is so extremely blurry that even seasoned copyright lawyers (much less a computer) can't say for sure until a case goes to court.
Lessig makes a reference to this in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.
Ahh, yes! The "begging the question" defense of free market theory.
The theory requires that everyone be rational therefore anything that people do in an economic transaction must be rational.
So he must have figured in the "shaftage" as part of the price he's paying. Which is rational. Because I said so.
Up next:
Proving God exists by reading the Bible.;-)
The real problem here is that "rational" is not well defined. And if you want to get really technical, a free market would have an infinite amount of sellers and and infinite amount of buyers.
Is there a way to force a City to provide more than one telco and cable provider?
I suppose it would depend on state law. However, don't get too excited.
I used to be on the Cable Advisory Board for Fairborn, OH. We had one cable franchise (Time Warner). This franchise agreement was non-exclusive. That means any other cable company was more than welcome to come in and negotiate a franchise agreement.
No one did. Why? Its not profitable to create new infrastructure and then try to convince the Time Warner customers to switch. Everyone who wants cable already has it and it'd take quite a bit to get enough people to switch. And if enough people did, Time Warner would get out of the game because there just aren't enough people to sustain profits for two cable companies.
Last mile access is a natural monopoly. There isn't any way around that.
I bet a majority of them end up expiring anyway, so the program would be able to return that money to congress.
Yes. My grandma got a coupon "just in case". She has cable, obviously she won't need one.
As for myself, I can currently watch TV via an antenna. I doubt I'll be able to after the transition, as I'm pretty far from the broadcast towers.
Some broadcasters aren't transmitting digitally at full power. Hell, I live about 10 miles from most of my towers and still have occasional trouble getting reception. It could be that you are in one of those areas where the stations will pump up their power output after the transition.
Thomas says this is a rule suspension vote. It takes a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Usually this is reserved for bills that are not very controversial and have broad support.
This failure just means that the bill will have to go to the rules committee. After a rule is passed and the bill is brought up under that rule, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass the bill.
This is just a very small bump in the road to extend the deadline.
It'd be as if UPS owned the roads in your area. They're going to charge tolls to the FedEx trucks. And if you're shipping too much in using another carrier, they're going to start throttling your shipments.
The simple solution is to have the government own the infrastructure and allow companies to sell services over the infrastructure. The companies who sell the services could be called Internet Service Providers or ISPs.
However, if the corporate tax is eliminated, a lot of restrictions would have to be setup (probably more than we already do have, and we do have them already) to keep people from stashing money in corporations.
The easy fix is to raise capital gains taxes. If someone is investing in a corporation, what do I care so long as he isn't getting any dividend? I'll be happy to tax it once he takes it out (think of it like an IRA of sorts).
When he does get a dividend that money is income and should be taxed as such (and IMO at a rate higher than ordinary income, but that's hardly at issue here).
I've seen things on the Internet to back my assertion (so it must be true). President-elect Obama made the same assertion in his third and final debate with McCain. I assume his guys at least did a preliminary fact check.
You can make a decent conjecture by using your own tax rates. Based on the tax brackets, I should pay about $4000 in federal taxes this year. However, once you factor in a standard deduction, personal exemption, FSA, health insurance, and student loan interest adjustment, I'm likely going to pay a lot less than the sticker. I'd actually be surprised if I pay half that.
Corporations qualify for a lot more deductions than us mortals do and they've got teams of accountants making sure they take advantage of every last one.
Our stated corporate tax rates are relatively high. However, we have so many loopholes, deductions, credits, etc. no one actually pays the rate listed in a table somewhere.
Real taxes paid by corporations is actually pretty low by world standards. No, you won't get a cite because I'm lazy.
That being said, business doesn't pay taxes. Taxes are just another cost passed along to the consumer.
"If you finish a project early, what would you be most likely to do?"
A: Help a colleague B: Relax C: Ask for a new assignment
Well, I answered the "true" answer, rather than the "correct" answer. There were a lot of questions like that on the test. I failed.
I came back in a few weeks later to take the test again, picked "correct" answers, and made it to an interview. Of course, then the economy took a nose-dive and they canceled that position opening, but it was a learning experience.
Companies would rather have people who lie about wanting to stay late and be a "team player" rather than people who are honest and don't.
Slashdot Mirror
My "fix" is to revoke the copyright for any programs that have DRM.
No DRMed program will ever enter the public domain in any real sense (in that it could be modified/built upon/etc.)
Wow! Someone else who could use XvMC. My aging Athlon XP 2400+ has trouble keeping up with 1080i MPEG-2 broadcast streams.
AFAIK, XvMC will never be implemented on any of the Radeons because they're going to move to the Gallium3D framework. Or they might go to VA API. Or something else entirely.
That's the problem: there are too many "solutions" to do hardware offloading for MPEG-2/4. There is no consensus about which to use, so no one is going to implement any of them.
And I should have read the story. It's late on the east coast.
Anything that allows someone the ability to modify and distribute your stuff automatically means it will be gratis.
With demand being static and supply being essentially infinite, the price will fall to $0.
+1
My cpu usages goes up to 100% for about 3 seconds or so.
It is annoying, but what am I gonna do about it?
Yes, no Foxit because Foxit isn't Free-with-a-capital-F. The entire reason the website was created was so that people could use free readers.
For me, I've never had Sumatra ever properly read a PDF file. I use Foxit on windows myself, but would rather use a free reader if I had to.
Some release candidates end up being the "1.0" product. IIRC Ubuntu has done this at least once. I think Wine may have done it with their 1.0 release.
And then I actually read your post...
Right. If you had no intention of RC1 being released then it isn't a release candidate, it's just a "gamma" build rather than a beta.
Of course, this is because a computer program cannot know if what you are doing is copyright infringement or fair use because the line between the two is so extremely blurry that even seasoned copyright lawyers (much less a computer) can't say for sure until a case goes to court.
Lessig makes a reference to this in Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace.
Ahh, yes! The "begging the question" defense of free market theory.
The theory requires that everyone be rational therefore anything that people do in an economic transaction must be rational.
So he must have figured in the "shaftage" as part of the price he's paying. Which is rational. Because I said so.
Up next:
Proving God exists by reading the Bible. ;-)
The real problem here is that "rational" is not well defined. And if you want to get really technical, a free market would have an infinite amount of sellers and and infinite amount of buyers.
Pray tell, how do you know? Skype is closed source and the protocol has only been partially reverse engineered.
And for what its worth, Skype uses RC4.
I suppose it would depend on state law. However, don't get too excited.
I used to be on the Cable Advisory Board for Fairborn, OH. We had one cable franchise (Time Warner). This franchise agreement was non-exclusive. That means any other cable company was more than welcome to come in and negotiate a franchise agreement.
No one did. Why? Its not profitable to create new infrastructure and then try to convince the Time Warner customers to switch. Everyone who wants cable already has it and it'd take quite a bit to get enough people to switch. And if enough people did, Time Warner would get out of the game because there just aren't enough people to sustain profits for two cable companies.
Last mile access is a natural monopoly. There isn't any way around that.
They're already in charge of your roads. However, you don't see speed limits set based on where you're going or what you're taking there.
A rule takes literally a day or so to come to the floor. I wouldn't be surprised to see this bill passed by the end of the week.
Yes. My grandma got a coupon "just in case". She has cable, obviously she won't need one.
Some broadcasters aren't transmitting digitally at full power. Hell, I live about 10 miles from most of my towers and still have occasional trouble getting reception. It could be that you are in one of those areas where the stations will pump up their power output after the transition.
See above.
Thomas says this is a rule suspension vote. It takes a 2/3 vote to suspend the rules and pass a bill. Usually this is reserved for bills that are not very controversial and have broad support.
This failure just means that the bill will have to go to the rules committee. After a rule is passed and the bill is brought up under that rule, a simple majority is all that is needed to pass the bill.
This is just a very small bump in the road to extend the deadline.
I sure hope he's Wesley Roberts otherwise that's a pretty obvious copy-and-paste from the article.
Indeed.
Its called a conflict of interest.
It'd be as if UPS owned the roads in your area. They're going to charge tolls to the FedEx trucks. And if you're shipping too much in using another carrier, they're going to start throttling your shipments.
The simple solution is to have the government own the infrastructure and allow companies to sell services over the infrastructure. The companies who sell the services could be called Internet Service Providers or ISPs.
The easy fix is to raise capital gains taxes. If someone is investing in a corporation, what do I care so long as he isn't getting any dividend? I'll be happy to tax it once he takes it out (think of it like an IRA of sorts).
When he does get a dividend that money is income and should be taxed as such (and IMO at a rate higher than ordinary income, but that's hardly at issue here).
I've seen things on the Internet to back my assertion (so it must be true). President-elect Obama made the same assertion in his third and final debate with McCain. I assume his guys at least did a preliminary fact check.
You can make a decent conjecture by using your own tax rates. Based on the tax brackets, I should pay about $4000 in federal taxes this year. However, once you factor in a standard deduction, personal exemption, FSA, health insurance, and student loan interest adjustment, I'm likely going to pay a lot less than the sticker. I'd actually be surprised if I pay half that.
Corporations qualify for a lot more deductions than us mortals do and they've got teams of accountants making sure they take advantage of every last one.
Yes we would. However such a policy would make sense, which is why it would never be implemented.
Our stated corporate tax rates are relatively high. However, we have so many loopholes, deductions, credits, etc. no one actually pays the rate listed in a table somewhere.
Real taxes paid by corporations is actually pretty low by world standards. No, you won't get a cite because I'm lazy.
That being said, business doesn't pay taxes. Taxes are just another cost passed along to the consumer.
+1
Yeah, that was a blast.
I was a bit too honest on the first test:
"If you finish a project early, what would you be most likely to do?"
A: Help a colleague
B: Relax
C: Ask for a new assignment
Well, I answered the "true" answer, rather than the "correct" answer. There were a lot of questions like that on the test. I failed.
I came back in a few weeks later to take the test again, picked "correct" answers, and made it to an interview. Of course, then the economy took a nose-dive and they canceled that position opening, but it was a learning experience.
Companies would rather have people who lie about wanting to stay late and be a "team player" rather than people who are honest and don't.
I'm not so sure.
Smith believed in the labor theory of value, so he'd have thought that what the software was "worth" is the amount of labor required to produce it.
On slashdot?
I'd actually be very pleased if my death made it to the front page.