If you look at the sides of this device, you will notice there are ridges that look like they redirect the air in the opposite direction of the rotation of the blades, essentially negating the rotation.
I'm pretty confident that I could reproduce a semi functional (hover only) version of this in a weekend... damn device looks almost too simple to be new.
This is an excellent idea. Almost one of those head slapping "why didn't I think of that?" type ideas.
I could see these replacing many unmanned aerial recon aircraft in urban and other areas where there is potential for the craft to bump into objects. Hell, with a bit of inlet cowling to prevent debris from hitting the propeller, I would suspect this thing could be used in wooded areas like dense jungles where typical surveillance craft can only use infrared.
Definitely a marketable idea! A+ to the US military for recognizing potential and buying it! Of course, our military buys into every crackpot idea, so it's no surprise!
Hmm... now that I think about it... the US military is kinda like Google... spend money everywhere and your bound to spend it in the right place eventually. When the goal is to maintain technical superiority, I guess it's worth the cost, seems to work for google.
I can't be sure... but it seems to me I had component video (480i) prior to 2000. I seem to remember using it to connect my progressive scan DVD player to my set then.
I would have to check the year of manufacture of the set, but I seem to remember picking it up in the late 90's as a year old floor sample.
Tons of SDTV's have component input. HDMI is right out, but component has been on every SDTV I have bought in the last 5 years or so. Sure you pay more for these SDTV's with component inputs, but they do exist.
Indeed it is... but the concern was always there. The GPL is unique in that it is a copyleft license, and instead of restricting rights, it grants them. Copyright law, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have any prior case law regarding some of the ideas expressed in the GPL.
As such, there is always the fear that the license will not stand up to legal scrutiny. This is true for any legal document... which is why lawyers are well paid to draft such documents.
A will (as in "last will and testament") is a great example of how a document, even one that the intent of the writer is clear, can be twisted to mean something completely different when reviewed by lawyers. Even a will drafted by a lawyer can be picked apart by other lawyers, sometimes resulting in the entire thing being deemed invalid and thus entire estates end up in probate and often go to someone other than the deceased intended.
As I've said before, a legal document that hasn't been successfully tested by the courts is not worth the magnetic material it's stored on. Hell, even the US Constitution is open to interpretation.
Wouldn't do much good if the MS or SCO's of the world could destroy the product by destroying the GPL. If the GPL were ever found invalid, all of the software based upon it would be at risk.
Sure, they have a patent, and if they actually implement what's in the patent it's meaningful to look at... but more often than not, the patent is much broader than the actual application, or the patent isn't even being used.
If I looked at patents to determine what a business was capable of, I would be driving a car that gets 100's of miles to the gallon!
The article clearly says that he discovered the exploits while tinkering with JTAG.
He said he came up with the technique after spending several months cracking open and soldering test equipment onto a range of embedded devices. By taking advantage of... JTAG (Joint Test Action Group) Jack was able to sneak a peek at the systems' processors and get a close-up look at how they worked. "With every hardware device, there has to be a way for developers to debug the code and all I did was take advantage of that," he said. "As I was digging deeper into the architecture, I saw a couple of subtleties which could allow for some interesting things. So while using the JTAG to debug the processor he noticed a couple of potential exploits.
The rest of the article goes on to discuss the security implications of leaving the JTAG enabled
Though some companies are able to cut off the JTAG interface on their products, Jack said it was enabled in 90 percent of the devices he examined. I am certain that this article isn't trying to suggest that hackers break into networks using JTAG... that's just plain dumb. What he is saying, is that because most devices leave their JTAG intact, hackers can debug the code on their processors and find flaws. Essentially reverse engineering the underlying architecture and using that knowledge to exploit it.
I imagine that Juniper produces some of the 10% of those devices that disable the JTAG on their equipment, that is why they are promoting this in hacker circles.
I think what it's actually saying is that, by using the jtag to better understand the configuration of the machine, new exploits can be found.
So it's not exactly an exploit, but a way to discover exploits by targeting issues with the embedded processors as discovered via jtag access to a similar unit.
that Juniper wants the BLACK HAT hackers focusing on their hardware?
To me that seems bass ackwards. Something seems fishy about the post, perhaps they want White HAT hackers, or maybe they are afraid of the interest of Black Hats but... surely they aren't excited to have people finding holes in their devices and not reporting them?
Yes, there are those who know only that there is a legal battle raging... however they are the same people who had never even heard of Linux, or wouldn't be interested in using it anyway.
When IBM wins the case, and the major media runs a cover story about the 10+ year long, many million dollar lawsuit that shut the doors forever on SCO, and brought Linux into the world of legit software they will hear it a lot louder than if this suit never happened.
I don't care what anyone says... the SCO lawsuit against IBM is probably the BEST thing that could have happened for the linux community and Free Software at large. Better even than having a unified package manager and hardware specs for every device ever made!
Why? All that needed to happen to push Linux back into the dark ages is to have either the GPL deemed unenforceable and invalid, or have SCO come after some smaller and poorer players in the Linux community. With this lawsuit all but won, Free Software has earned a certain status. It's not 100% safe, but it will take far more than what SCO threw at it to bring it down now. These last few years didn't just see an reasonable increase in user base for Free Software, but it saw a many fold increase in credibility... credibility that could have been lost if SCO won their lawsuit, or had taken out other smaller players.
Claimed $1 Billion IN DAMAGES is not the same as what they likely would have settled for out of court, especially if it came with IBM admitting infringement.
I would bet that they could have settled for a few 10's of millions... but SCO is a bit out there, so who knows.
it's shed light on the ridiculousness of software patents
On the contrary, it's shown that the system, slow as it is, at least works reasonably. They abandoned the lame-o patent claims long ago when it became clear they weren't winning them. Kinda my point. They dropped the pursuit of patent claims that were no better than their copyright claims, because they realized that it's more a more difficult to fight for the patent issues. I am not saying they blew the doors wide open, but the fact that they chose the copyright fight over the patent one demonstrates that not even complete idiots will try and fight Free Software over patent issues. (exaggeration, and flaimbait I know).
and brought clarity to copyright law.
I don't know what's been clarified, other than the fact that there isn't any SCO-owned code in Linux save what they put there and has since been removed. Copyright law has always been clear with regard to this case: don't copy what isn't yours. Problem is (for SCO), IBM didn't. Their case with IBM has clarified how Free Software can defend itself against copyright claims, and it has also proven that GPL is a valid, trial tested, copyright license. This may seem minor, but no license is considered worth the paper it's written on until it is contested in court... same goes for contracts, waviers, etc. Without precedent, there is no way of knowing how the language will be interpreted.
Additionally it's shown that there are companies who are willing to stand up for Free Software, even at great expense.
I'd be wary - IBM is standing up for themselves. When they start filing amicus briefs in cases they're not involved in, that don't impact them directly, then I'll agree with that. Are they? IBM is indeed defending themselves... however I would guess that they could have settled early on and not incurred quite as much cost. However this would have set a precedent that the Free Software community could not afford. They were not the target so much as Free Software... however they were one of the few targets that would be able to pay a settlement if SCO won, and one of the few targets that might be willing to pay SCO off in a settlement agreement. Instead, IBM has chosen to stand behind Free Software, and fight the ridiculous claims of SCO. Would they step up and help if SCO had chosen a different target, I doubt it, at least not to the degree of commitment they have in this case.
All I was saying with my post, is that this entire legal proceeding has given Free Software credibility that it lacked prior to SCO making its outlandish claims. This case could have broken the back of Linux and Free Software, given it a reputation as a bunch of thieves and hackers (with common negative connotation). This would have occurred if IBM had not chosen to fight, or had lost... so I thank IBM for their all of their efforts! And I thank SCO for picking the wrong target!
There are nefarious groups in the world that would like to see SCO win and put Linux back into obscurity. Ironically, this case has had exactly the opposite effect that they intended.
It's shed light on the ridiculousness of software patents, and brought clarity to copyright law. Additionally it's shown that there are companies who are willing to stand up for Free Software, even at great expense.
I think those who have funneled money into SCO all deserve a round of applause for helping to validate Free Software!
What I mean, is that I wish we could foster that curosity and make all students interested in discovering and understanding the world around them, the languages we use, and the way our society works and how we can make it better.
If we could take a kid, from the time that they ask 'why?' about everything, and keep them in that super-curious state all the way through college... we wouldn't need to teach them so much as assist them in teaching themselves. And best of all, they would remember and understand the material so much better!
Thank you for the detailed response.... I wish I could mod it up. I hate to see someone put forth such effort for something thats' modded too low for most readers to see!
I may indeed be misinformed, perhaps even misguided, but ironically, the general user population has shown that what I desire is exactly what is wanted.
I assert that the average user of any OS doesn't care about developers' differences of opinion, they care that they can do what they wish to do with their system. You assert that developers don't care what their users' wishes are, they care about what they wish to do with their software. Until this can be remedied, Linux will never overtake the, arguably, more customer centric operating systems.
I understand that Windows and OSX are developed for profit, and thus it is required that they cater to the customer more. However it doesn't mean that the Free Software community cannot work toward providing a reasonable level of customer satisfaction.
In many areas this is already occuring. Redhat and Suse have done very well in developing their respective distros with a customer centric approach, as has Ubuntu and a number of other non commercial distros.
I would just love to see these, and the other major players, come together and say that once and for all there needs to be some standards that are adhered to by the linux community at large. I am not suggesting that what they make standard will be the best, nor that others are not free to pursue the it's something better... just that for the benefit of the community surrounding these products, some standard needs to be enforced.
Imagine if the movie studios all put out their own media formats because each of them had their own ideas of how to implement them. Imagine if websites all used their own language instead of html. Look around you, your world is surrounded by standards... our society exists because of them. Sure, someone's ideas get ignored, someone else's only get partially implemented, and someone usually dominates the discussion and rams their ideas through... but in the end, the customer still wins because they have a standard upon which to build. If the distro producers would develop and conform to just a few simple standards, the entire community would be SOOO much better off.
Perhaps they could agree to use the same kernel versions (+ security patches) for their releases. This way binary, kernel level, driver developers do not need to release as frequently.
Perhaps they could spec out, design, and develop a completely new package management solution that they all agree to use going forward, so that I can install the latest commercial software via a binary compatible with my OS. Maybe we would see greater interest by commercial software vendors.
Perhaps they could all agree on a common arrangement for the file system so that a novice can read a tutorial on installing apache from the apache site and have it applicable to their distro.
Perhaps they could work together to develop relationships with hardware vendors. The combined weight of entire linux community, who could provide them tools to allow them to develop a single binary driver for any distro, would be far more difficult to resist than the demands for specifications or compiled binaries from 10 different linux camps.
I am not stupid enough to believe that the Free Software community will ever achieve this pie-in-the-sky goal... in fact I don't suspect it will ever really come close. But I say it does need to be pursued as much as possible. I suggest people try linux all the time, and most of them turn away when they realize that there are so many choices... people love choice, as long as they know (or think they do) what the best choice is.
What I don't fully understand is why one MUST emulate the other if they merged. So you have GDE (Gnome + KDE)... it has a toggle that allows you to switch between KDE style and Gnome style interface.
To the user, they still have the choice, to the coder, they can merge many of the features of both and work on a common code foundation for both.
Essentially it would make most of the functionality optional, to be turned on or off at will... so you could have your Gnome, I could have my KDE, or we could both have a hybrid that uses the best features of both.
Once you have this, you will find that the great majority of the users will select a similar subset of features, and slowly the two will become one standard interface with a large number of options.... all the choice but with a common core.
I realize that my ideas are pie in the sky... and I am talking about a Utopian situation where there is no waste and everyone can work together. I never expect this to be true... I just would love to see people working toward it.
Ok... I get it now... I just learned more about DNA extraction in the last few minutes as I researched this on my own then I ever thought I would know!
Gotta love curiosity. We really need an educational system that fosters curiosity and research above all else... it makes learning so much more fun.
Congrats on the first comment... it's a shame you couldn't make it worth the magnetic material it's stored on.
I think that in the Linux world, mergers are a good thing and need to be made across the entire Linux community. Imagine if the Gnome and KDE camps could work together... or how about Mozilla and Opera... or most importantly the package management camps.
Want to bring linux to the mainstream, pick a standard and develop it. Set aside your disagreements and work for the greater good. The world doesn't need another linux distro, it needs everyone working to create a single comprehensive distro.
I hate it when I find a piece of software I want, only to discover there is no binary for my chosen distro. I don't hate it because I don't know how to compile it myself, but because I shouldn't have to.
I hate that I can only seem to get hardware drivers for Suse and Redhat because the vendor couldn't cater to everyone.
And I hate hearing about projects forking because two intelligent people can't come to a compromise.
Choice is good... but only when there is at least one option that meets the need. Too often there is so much competition that none of the products can really fulfill the needs they set out to fulfill because there are not enough developers to go around.
Here's a test by an audiophile that seems to suggest that encoding AAC at 192kbps in iTunes comes very close to CD quality. I imagine a 256kbps encode from the digital master would put it right there!
Slashdot Mirror
Before someone comments on the misspelling of saucer, I noticed it too late.
Before someone comments on the cheesy subject line... I know, it's bad.
Save your comments for something meaningful, like calling me a dolt or something like that.
If you look at the sides of this device, you will notice there are ridges that look like they redirect the air in the opposite direction of the rotation of the blades, essentially negating the rotation.
I'm pretty confident that I could reproduce a semi functional (hover only) version of this in a weekend... damn device looks almost too simple to be new.
and spilled the tea!
This is an excellent idea. Almost one of those head slapping "why didn't I think of that?" type ideas.
I could see these replacing many unmanned aerial recon aircraft in urban and other areas where there is potential for the craft to bump into objects. Hell, with a bit of inlet cowling to prevent debris from hitting the propeller, I would suspect this thing could be used in wooded areas like dense jungles where typical surveillance craft can only use infrared.
Definitely a marketable idea! A+ to the US military for recognizing potential and buying it! Of course, our military buys into every crackpot idea, so it's no surprise!
Hmm... now that I think about it... the US military is kinda like Google... spend money everywhere and your bound to spend it in the right place eventually. When the goal is to maintain technical superiority, I guess it's worth the cost, seems to work for google.
I can't be sure... but it seems to me I had component video (480i) prior to 2000. I seem to remember using it to connect my progressive scan DVD player to my set then.
I would have to check the year of manufacture of the set, but I seem to remember picking it up in the late 90's as a year old floor sample.
Tons of SDTV's have component input. HDMI is right out, but component has been on every SDTV I have bought in the last 5 years or so. Sure you pay more for these SDTV's with component inputs, but they do exist.
y /eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_BrowseCatalog-Start?Categor yName=tv_27to32TVs&Dept=tvvideo
For example: http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinit
Indeed it is... but the concern was always there. The GPL is unique in that it is a copyleft license, and instead of restricting rights, it grants them. Copyright law, to the best of my knowledge, doesn't have any prior case law regarding some of the ideas expressed in the GPL.
As such, there is always the fear that the license will not stand up to legal scrutiny. This is true for any legal document... which is why lawyers are well paid to draft such documents.
A will (as in "last will and testament") is a great example of how a document, even one that the intent of the writer is clear, can be twisted to mean something completely different when reviewed by lawyers. Even a will drafted by a lawyer can be picked apart by other lawyers, sometimes resulting in the entire thing being deemed invalid and thus entire estates end up in probate and often go to someone other than the deceased intended.
As I've said before, a legal document that hasn't been successfully tested by the courts is not worth the magnetic material it's stored on. Hell, even the US Constitution is open to interpretation.
Wouldn't do much good if the MS or SCO's of the world could destroy the product by destroying the GPL. If the GPL were ever found invalid, all of the software based upon it would be at risk.
Sure, they have a patent, and if they actually implement what's in the patent it's meaningful to look at... but more often than not, the patent is much broader than the actual application, or the patent isn't even being used.
If I looked at patents to determine what a business was capable of, I would be driving a car that gets 100's of miles to the gallon!
The rest of the article goes on to discuss the security implications of leaving the JTAG enabled Though some companies are able to cut off the JTAG interface on their products, Jack said it was enabled in 90 percent of the devices he examined. I am certain that this article isn't trying to suggest that hackers break into networks using JTAG... that's just plain dumb. What he is saying, is that because most devices leave their JTAG intact, hackers can debug the code on their processors and find flaws. Essentially reverse engineering the underlying architecture and using that knowledge to exploit it.
I imagine that Juniper produces some of the 10% of those devices that disable the JTAG on their equipment, that is why they are promoting this in hacker circles.
I think what it's actually saying is that, by using the jtag to better understand the configuration of the machine, new exploits can be found.
So it's not exactly an exploit, but a way to discover exploits by targeting issues with the embedded processors as discovered via jtag access to a similar unit.
that Juniper wants the BLACK HAT hackers focusing on their hardware?
To me that seems bass ackwards. Something seems fishy about the post, perhaps they want White HAT hackers, or maybe they are afraid of the interest of Black Hats but... surely they aren't excited to have people finding holes in their devices and not reporting them?
Thank you for speaking my mind for me... you stated exactly what I was trying to suggest in my ramblings.
The case is good because it sets a precedent in favor of Linux and Free Software... and lawyers and judges love precedent.
Yes, there are those who know only that there is a legal battle raging... however they are the same people who had never even heard of Linux, or wouldn't be interested in using it anyway.
When IBM wins the case, and the major media runs a cover story about the 10+ year long, many million dollar lawsuit that shut the doors forever on SCO, and brought Linux into the world of legit software they will hear it a lot louder than if this suit never happened.
I don't care what anyone says... the SCO lawsuit against IBM is probably the BEST thing that could have happened for the linux community and Free Software at large. Better even than having a unified package manager and hardware specs for every device ever made!
Why? All that needed to happen to push Linux back into the dark ages is to have either the GPL deemed unenforceable and invalid, or have SCO come after some smaller and poorer players in the Linux community. With this lawsuit all but won, Free Software has earned a certain status. It's not 100% safe, but it will take far more than what SCO threw at it to bring it down now. These last few years didn't just see an reasonable increase in user base for Free Software, but it saw a many fold increase in credibility... credibility that could have been lost if SCO won their lawsuit, or had taken out other smaller players.
Thank you again IBM!
Claimed $1 Billion IN DAMAGES is not the same as what they likely would have settled for out of court, especially if it came with IBM admitting infringement.
I would bet that they could have settled for a few 10's of millions... but SCO is a bit out there, so who knows.
On the contrary, it's shown that the system, slow as it is, at least works reasonably. They abandoned the lame-o patent claims long ago when it became clear they weren't winning them. Kinda my point. They dropped the pursuit of patent claims that were no better than their copyright claims, because they realized that it's more a more difficult to fight for the patent issues. I am not saying they blew the doors wide open, but the fact that they chose the copyright fight over the patent one demonstrates that not even complete idiots will try and fight Free Software over patent issues. (exaggeration, and flaimbait I know). and brought clarity to copyright law.
I don't know what's been clarified, other than the fact that there isn't any SCO-owned code in Linux save what they put there and has since been removed. Copyright law has always been clear with regard to this case: don't copy what isn't yours. Problem is (for SCO), IBM didn't. Their case with IBM has clarified how Free Software can defend itself against copyright claims, and it has also proven that GPL is a valid, trial tested, copyright license. This may seem minor, but no license is considered worth the paper it's written on until it is contested in court... same goes for contracts, waviers, etc. Without precedent, there is no way of knowing how the language will be interpreted. Additionally it's shown that there are companies who are willing to stand up for Free Software, even at great expense.
I'd be wary - IBM is standing up for themselves. When they start filing amicus briefs in cases they're not involved in, that don't impact them directly, then I'll agree with that. Are they? IBM is indeed defending themselves... however I would guess that they could have settled early on and not incurred quite as much cost. However this would have set a precedent that the Free Software community could not afford. They were not the target so much as Free Software... however they were one of the few targets that would be able to pay a settlement if SCO won, and one of the few targets that might be willing to pay SCO off in a settlement agreement. Instead, IBM has chosen to stand behind Free Software, and fight the ridiculous claims of SCO. Would they step up and help if SCO had chosen a different target, I doubt it, at least not to the degree of commitment they have in this case.
All I was saying with my post, is that this entire legal proceeding has given Free Software credibility that it lacked prior to SCO making its outlandish claims. This case could have broken the back of Linux and Free Software, given it a reputation as a bunch of thieves and hackers (with common negative connotation). This would have occurred if IBM had not chosen to fight, or had lost... so I thank IBM for their all of their efforts! And I thank SCO for picking the wrong target!
There are nefarious groups in the world that would like to see SCO win and put Linux back into obscurity. Ironically, this case has had exactly the opposite effect that they intended.
It's shed light on the ridiculousness of software patents, and brought clarity to copyright law. Additionally it's shown that there are companies who are willing to stand up for Free Software, even at great expense.
I think those who have funneled money into SCO all deserve a round of applause for helping to validate Free Software!
What I mean, is that I wish we could foster that curosity and make all students interested in discovering and understanding the world around them, the languages we use, and the way our society works and how we can make it better.
If we could take a kid, from the time that they ask 'why?' about everything, and keep them in that super-curious state all the way through college... we wouldn't need to teach them so much as assist them in teaching themselves. And best of all, they would remember and understand the material so much better!
Thank you for the detailed response.... I wish I could mod it up. I hate to see someone put forth such effort for something thats' modded too low for most readers to see!
I may indeed be misinformed, perhaps even misguided, but ironically, the general user population has shown that what I desire is exactly what is wanted.
I assert that the average user of any OS doesn't care about developers' differences of opinion, they care that they can do what they wish to do with their system. You assert that developers don't care what their users' wishes are, they care about what they wish to do with their software. Until this can be remedied, Linux will never overtake the, arguably, more customer centric operating systems.
I understand that Windows and OSX are developed for profit, and thus it is required that they cater to the customer more. However it doesn't mean that the Free Software community cannot work toward providing a reasonable level of customer satisfaction.
In many areas this is already occuring. Redhat and Suse have done very well in developing their respective distros with a customer centric approach, as has Ubuntu and a number of other non commercial distros.
I would just love to see these, and the other major players, come together and say that once and for all there needs to be some standards that are adhered to by the linux community at large. I am not suggesting that what they make standard will be the best, nor that others are not free to pursue the it's something better... just that for the benefit of the community surrounding these products, some standard needs to be enforced.
Imagine if the movie studios all put out their own media formats because each of them had their own ideas of how to implement them. Imagine if websites all used their own language instead of html. Look around you, your world is surrounded by standards... our society exists because of them. Sure, someone's ideas get ignored, someone else's only get partially implemented, and someone usually dominates the discussion and rams their ideas through... but in the end, the customer still wins because they have a standard upon which to build. If the distro producers would develop and conform to just a few simple standards, the entire community would be SOOO much better off.
Perhaps they could agree to use the same kernel versions (+ security patches) for their releases. This way binary, kernel level, driver developers do not need to release as frequently.
Perhaps they could spec out, design, and develop a completely new package management solution that they all agree to use going forward, so that I can install the latest commercial software via a binary compatible with my OS. Maybe we would see greater interest by commercial software vendors.
Perhaps they could all agree on a common arrangement for the file system so that a novice can read a tutorial on installing apache from the apache site and have it applicable to their distro.
Perhaps they could work together to develop relationships with hardware vendors. The combined weight of entire linux community, who could provide them tools to allow them to develop a single binary driver for any distro, would be far more difficult to resist than the demands for specifications or compiled binaries from 10 different linux camps.
I am not stupid enough to believe that the Free Software community will ever achieve this pie-in-the-sky goal... in fact I don't suspect it will ever really come close. But I say it does need to be pursued as much as possible. I suggest people try linux all the time, and most of them turn away when they realize that there are so many choices... people love choice, as long as they know (or think they do) what the best choice is.
What I don't fully understand is why one MUST emulate the other if they merged. So you have GDE (Gnome + KDE)... it has a toggle that allows you to switch between KDE style and Gnome style interface.
To the user, they still have the choice, to the coder, they can merge many of the features of both and work on a common code foundation for both.
Essentially it would make most of the functionality optional, to be turned on or off at will... so you could have your Gnome, I could have my KDE, or we could both have a hybrid that uses the best features of both.
Once you have this, you will find that the great majority of the users will select a similar subset of features, and slowly the two will become one standard interface with a large number of options.... all the choice but with a common core.
I realize that my ideas are pie in the sky... and I am talking about a Utopian situation where there is no waste and everyone can work together. I never expect this to be true... I just would love to see people working toward it.
Ok... I get it now... I just learned more about DNA extraction in the last few minutes as I researched this on my own then I ever thought I would know!
Gotta love curiosity. We really need an educational system that fosters curiosity and research above all else... it makes learning so much more fun.
Thanks for the reply!
extract dna from millions of microbes?
I always thought that DNA extraction was a manual process... or at least it required a significant amount of manpower to get.
Congrats on the first comment... it's a shame you couldn't make it worth the magnetic material it's stored on.
I think that in the Linux world, mergers are a good thing and need to be made across the entire Linux community. Imagine if the Gnome and KDE camps could work together... or how about Mozilla and Opera... or most importantly the package management camps.
Want to bring linux to the mainstream, pick a standard and develop it. Set aside your disagreements and work for the greater good. The world doesn't need another linux distro, it needs everyone working to create a single comprehensive distro.
I hate it when I find a piece of software I want, only to discover there is no binary for my chosen distro. I don't hate it because I don't know how to compile it myself, but because I shouldn't have to.
I hate that I can only seem to get hardware drivers for Suse and Redhat because the vendor couldn't cater to everyone.
And I hate hearing about projects forking because two intelligent people can't come to a compromise.
Choice is good... but only when there is at least one option that meets the need. Too often there is so much competition that none of the products can really fulfill the needs they set out to fulfill because there are not enough developers to go around.
Here's a test by an audiophile that seems to suggest that encoding AAC at 192kbps in iTunes comes very close to CD quality. I imagine a 256kbps encode from the digital master would put it right there!
l
http://www.recordstorereview.com/misc/aacmp3.shtm