I've tried MythTV, and found it to be terribly lowsy. . . . hearing the rave reviews about the Hauppauge PVR 250/350, I spent the money to get a PVR250, and found the quality to be no better than what I was getting, and the hardware encoder requires massive bitrates
Is it possible (re the PVR 250) that you didn't have the software/drivers setup to utilize the hardware features of the card? And what were the specs on the box on which you were running it?
I don't have any experience with MythTV, but I am making plans on putting together a box within the next few months (probably with a pchdtv card, and a hauppauge pvr-350, amd-64m, an nVidia video card). Any other relevant details of your experience that you can share?
I don't see what the problem is with good quality captures off of a component video input.
I don't believe there's any consumer level equipment to do this. (To be clear, we're talking component video here, not composite.) If memory serves, such equipment is professional/broadcaster level, running in the $1000s - $10,000s.
I just want to try to add a little clarity to the discussion here.
First, there is the good old "free as in freedom (libre)" vs. "free as in beer". I think most slashdotters get that distinction.
Here's the thing, though. There can't be unlimited freedom (libre). If I were free to do anything I feel like, that impinges on your freedoms. My desired right to punch you in the face impinges on your right to personal security. These freedoms cannot coexist.
Upshot: which freedoms do you fight for, which do you value? Which has priority, which is right? Should people and/or corporations be free to earn an exclusive revenue stream from a creative or useful work that fits in the "IP" category? Or should there be, rather, unrestricted freedom to copy said works? Should a corporation/person be free to distribute a program as binary only, or must the public be free to view the source code?
I'm not trying to be redundant (as this may seem obvious to some), and I'm not trying to get everyone to repeat themselves in reply to my post. I'm just stating what I see to be an underlying theme in the discussion, which I think sometimes gets murky when people on multiple sides of the issue all argue for "freedom".
Another poster linked to this article, which speaks to RMS's position on such issues. His proposed system (see highlighted section of article) allows for a short term copyright and revenue stream for certain categories of works, such as entertainment.
does the quality of your WAAS position improve if you're close to a reference site
No, at least not since SA was deactivated. So long as you've got some WRSs (Wide-Area Reference Stations) all around you, it won't make a difference. This is because of the way the WAAS solution is performed. Corrections for each satellite are based on data from several sites. For Ionospheric corrections, a solution grid (of IGPs, Ionospheric Grid Points) is projected above the Continental US (CONUS), and the receiver makes corrections based on that, not directly on a nearby site.
or in a good geometry (HDOP-wise) relative to a set of sites?
Not sure I get your meaning here. HDOP isn't relative to other locations, it's a given for a certain position according to the satellite geometry at the time.
HDOP is more related to GPS than WAAS, so your final resulting error with WAAS, with a good HDOP, will be better than your final resulting error with WAAS, with a bad HDOP, since your initial uncorrected (GPS only) error was better with the lower HDOP.
WAAS uses geostationary satellites to relay data, but the important part is the network of 25 ground reference sites. This sites are precisely surveyed, and used to calculate correction data for the GPS signals. This correction data is periodically uplinked to the geostationary satellites, which relay the corrections to WAAS-equipped GPS receivers. The receivers use the correction data for their location to refine the GPS calculation.
You are absolutely correct. Note that I was just trying to keep it simple, and speak from the user perspective (i.e. receiver sees GEOs, not ground stations), to point out the incorrect assertion in the parent post.
I thought they could shut down the GPS in sections at will already? Didn't they do this when they invaded Iraq (er, 2nd time)?
When Clinton allowed for more accurate GPS signals to be used by civilians, it sure seemed like they just flipped a switch one day and it was suddenly more accurate for everyone...
WAAS was demilitarized some time ago. This allows for much greater accuracy.
I work in the Testing & Evaluation of WAAS. WAAS and Selective Availability are not the same (or opposites). WAAS was never "militarized".
When Clinton ordered for the switch to be flipped (so to speak), what was done was the disabling of Selective Availability, which was a purposeful degradation of the civilian GPS signal (L1). The military had (and still has) a second (encrypted) signal that a military receiver must have a key to properly use (L2). Using that signal enhances their accuracy, whether or not Selective Availability is active.
WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) is something else. WAAS uses Geostationary Satellites to enhance (augment) GPS accuracy & precision in the USA. Not all GPS receivers use WAAS. Accuracy of a WAAS receiver is increased in either case (that is, with or without Selective Availability) relative to a non-WAAS receiver, but there is a noticeable difference from SA.
Not all GPS receivers use WAAS, but Selective Availability has been disabled, which affects all GPS receivers.
1. Ban criminal from using the Internet
2. Make no serious effort to enforce this ban
3. Wait for criminal to commit another crime
4. In gathering evidence determine criminal was engaged in the use of the Internet in violation of the ruling of the courts.
5. Throw on extra charges that are easy to prove and thus gain a position of power in plea agreements or sentencing.
6. Go about throwing other criminals into prison.
I thought that it was normal corporate behaviour to look at their competitors. Long time ago there was a story here on/. where one of the lead devs of IE admitted that he ran firefox. But when this guy doesnt run *nix and oracle, how should he be able to compete with them?
Maybe because this is the company's internal IT practices, basically what they do to run their shop. He isn't talking about the product strategy groups who go off and do exactly what you are saying.
Indeed. From TFA, 2nd paragraph under "Do you use any Linux?":
We do, in areas on the client, have an open-source client running--just for competitive analysis.
The GPL can be rewritten within this regime to force all use of patented technologies to be released with source and with all other patented technologies in the same product open too.
I see one problem with this: published compositions are automatically protected by copyright, but obtaining a patent requires going through an application process, which costs money, and risks rejection. If I write a piece of software, I can--without cost, and without risk of it being overturned--license it under the GPL. Not so with patents. Each author who would wish to obtain a patent on his work would have to incur that cost and risk every time. (Not to mention the issue of whether software should be patentable at all.)
Work with systems integrators that are willing to put MythTV on a silent fanless system with a pcHDTV card and your video card/chip.
This is something I have been planning on doing myself for several months now--a silent MythTV HTPC capable of HiDef PVR functionality, in a small form factor case if possible. It would have HD * SD tuners, HDTV and SDTV output... (Project on hold for the moment for lack of funds.) I foresee several hurdles, so it would be cool to see someone (a system integrator no less) working on this very thing!
Considering how the pcHDTV card has sold (out), the parent poster's suggestion sounds like a really cool (niche) market to me!
Slashdot Mirror
Is it possible (re the PVR 250) that you didn't have the software/drivers setup to utilize the hardware features of the card? And what were the specs on the box on which you were running it?
I don't have any experience with MythTV, but I am making plans on putting together a box within the next few months (probably with a pchdtv card, and a hauppauge pvr-350, amd-64m, an nVidia video card). Any other relevant details of your experience that you can share?
I don't believe there's any consumer level equipment to do this. (To be clear, we're talking component video here, not composite.) If memory serves, such equipment is professional/broadcaster level, running in the $1000s - $10,000s.
Can anyone confirm or deny?
First, there is the good old "free as in freedom (libre)" vs. "free as in beer". I think most slashdotters get that distinction.
Here's the thing, though. There can't be unlimited freedom (libre). If I were free to do anything I feel like, that impinges on your freedoms. My desired right to punch you in the face impinges on your right to personal security. These freedoms cannot coexist.
Upshot: which freedoms do you fight for, which do you value? Which has priority, which is right? Should people and/or corporations be free to earn an exclusive revenue stream from a creative or useful work that fits in the "IP" category? Or should there be, rather, unrestricted freedom to copy said works? Should a corporation/person be free to distribute a program as binary only, or must the public be free to view the source code?
I'm not trying to be redundant (as this may seem obvious to some), and I'm not trying to get everyone to repeat themselves in reply to my post. I'm just stating what I see to be an underlying theme in the discussion, which I think sometimes gets murky when people on multiple sides of the issue all argue for "freedom".
Another poster linked to this article, which speaks to RMS's position on such issues. His proposed system (see highlighted section of article) allows for a short term copyright and revenue stream for certain categories of works, such as entertainment.
No, at least not since SA was deactivated. So long as you've got some WRSs (Wide-Area Reference Stations) all around you, it won't make a difference. This is because of the way the WAAS solution is performed. Corrections for each satellite are based on data from several sites. For Ionospheric corrections, a solution grid (of IGPs, Ionospheric Grid Points) is projected above the Continental US (CONUS), and the receiver makes corrections based on that, not directly on a nearby site.
Not sure I get your meaning here. HDOP isn't relative to other locations, it's a given for a certain position according to the satellite geometry at the time.
HDOP is more related to GPS than WAAS, so your final resulting error with WAAS, with a good HDOP, will be better than your final resulting error with WAAS, with a bad HDOP, since your initial uncorrected (GPS only) error was better with the lower HDOP.
You are absolutely correct. Note that I was just trying to keep it simple, and speak from the user perspective (i.e. receiver sees GEOs, not ground stations), to point out the incorrect assertion in the parent post.
I work in the Testing & Evaluation of WAAS. WAAS and Selective Availability are not the same (or opposites). WAAS was never "militarized".
When Clinton ordered for the switch to be flipped (so to speak), what was done was the disabling of Selective Availability, which was a purposeful degradation of the civilian GPS signal (L1). The military had (and still has) a second (encrypted) signal that a military receiver must have a key to properly use (L2). Using that signal enhances their accuracy, whether or not Selective Availability is active.
WAAS (Wide Area Augmentation System) is something else. WAAS uses Geostationary Satellites to enhance (augment) GPS accuracy & precision in the USA. Not all GPS receivers use WAAS. Accuracy of a WAAS receiver is increased in either case (that is, with or without Selective Availability) relative to a non-WAAS receiver, but there is a noticeable difference from SA.
Not all GPS receivers use WAAS, but Selective Availability has been disabled, which affects all GPS receivers.
7. ??
8. Profit!
Indeed. From TFA, 2nd paragraph under "Do you use any Linux?":
I see one problem with this: published compositions are automatically protected by copyright, but obtaining a patent requires going through an application process, which costs money, and risks rejection. If I write a piece of software, I can--without cost, and without risk of it being overturned--license it under the GPL. Not so with patents. Each author who would wish to obtain a patent on his work would have to incur that cost and risk every time. (Not to mention the issue of whether software should be patentable at all.)
I know this is a bit OT, but I've been wondering: what does "HDTV-LOL" stand for? Been googling, can't seem to find an answer.
Obviously HDTV is hi-definition tv. But the only thing I've ever known LOL to stand for is 'laughing out loud'. Is it some group's tag?
This is something I have been planning on doing myself for several months now--a silent MythTV HTPC capable of HiDef PVR functionality, in a small form factor case if possible. It would have HD * SD tuners, HDTV and SDTV output... (Project on hold for the moment for lack of funds.) I foresee several hurdles, so it would be cool to see someone (a system integrator no less) working on this very thing!
Considering how the pcHDTV card has sold (out), the parent poster's suggestion sounds like a really cool (niche) market to me!