Heheheh. Because there was no means of enforcing IP, works were created by commission. Someone had to pay for them, and there was only one. Also, the number of people who could be sustained by the market was minimal - IP wasn't much of an issue because distribution wasn't possible.
Of course there were means of "enforcing IP" then same means as today - tie to a physical object like a book or a DVD or canvas and then make sure nobody steals the physical object.
The key point is that prior to Gutenberg, distribution of the creation beyond the comissioner was infeasible on anything approaching a large scale so the economic model HAD to be: pay now, get result later.
After the press was created, the reach of distribution far exceeded the reach of feasible conmissioning - thus to take advantage of this new distribution technology, a new economic model came about: work now, get paid in bits and pieces later.
Today we have the internet. Distribution has reached its logical end - effectively infinite distribution for close to no cost at all. Because distribution is effectively zero cost, everyone can be a distributor on the internet and thus "enforcing IP" has, for the first time, reached the point of impossibility.
But, the internet changed something else too - it increased the range of the original commission model. We see it all the time on enthusiast websites for all manner of products like cars, computers, model airplanes, etc - the "group buy" where enough people pool their money to purchase some product at either a signficant discount if it is "off the shelf" or, just as commonly, to bring into existence a custom designed product.
The internet currently reaches close to a billion people, that's a HUGE market. Working on comission is now completely feasible once again and in fact better suited to the current reality that "enforcing IP" is no longer feasible.
It's like you have your own little world - you define reasonable force, you define economic terms. etc. Reasonable force can't prevent people from communicating?
Well aren't you the perfect example of the pot being black. Come on, you are the one who wants to redefine the term "natural monopoly" and ignore the textbook definitions of other economic terms used in this discussion. Furthermore, just what do you consider reasonable? What exactly can you, or even the USA, do to prevent 10 million people across fiften different countries in Asia from sharing a popular mp3 song or mpg video among themselves? Are you going to "liberate" Malaysia over a bunch of internet pirates?
You are also lucky you will have to earn a living from debating - in court or elsewhere, else your dissociation with reality might become as apparent to you as it would to anyone other than the/. losers who similarly hate IP because they never really created any.
Sorry bub, but your characterization is far from the truth. I work soley on comission to create and improve software for my clients. Have been doing so for close to a decade now. I don't "hate IP" - I just understand that it is an economic model whose time has long passed. It's clear that I'm right here in the middle of the current reality while you are living in yesterday's world.
And GPL is not a hack. An associate of mine specializing in these laws did a study on the enforcability of GPL for the World Bank. His conclusion was that it passed all the necessary tests to stand up in the US and elsewhere - and he has also counseled his developer clients not to use GPL for this reason - because they may be forced to open up their otherwise closed software.
You do not understand the definition of the word hack. Your description of the GPL is exactly what qualifies it as a hack. If you don't believe the technical definition, just look at the actual name "copyleft" - clearly a play on words that demonstrates the intent to subvert the very system that allows it to exist.
So what do you tell authors? Or composers? If their deal is this - I will only create if you allow me to profit in the free market from my creation, and you tell them they can't, do you really think that entire industries of employed, productive people would exist anymore around these industries? The test of an idea is it's effect. The effect of elimintating IP protections is the equivilant of eliminating real property protections.
Again FALSE. How do you think authors, composers, et al were compensated BEFORE copyright became widespread (circa Gutenberg - and even then it was primarily a means of taxation, not compensation). You can't seriously contend that no artistic creation occurred before the printing press was invented.
If I could not take the profit from my restaurant, it would not exist.
FALSE ANALOGY. You can sell your restraunt outright, you can sell the services of your restraunt but in each case value is created and compensated for directly. However, you can not sell your restraunt more than once, nor can you cook a single meal once and feed it to customers over and over again. Yet, just like real proprety you CAN lock up your ideas and then sell access to them a single time.
This is where I decide to stop and ignore you. Reasonably sufficient force can only be used to defend real property but not IP? That's... silly. I can use the same force to defend IP. It's the same kind of force the law would use - I'd come to your house and tear your computer through the wall. Or disconnect your electricity. It's the same kind of force I'd use to prevent you from stealing my car.
Reasonable force can not prevent a person from communicating. Furthermore, reasonable force can certainly not prevent thousands of people from communicating.
Case closed.
Only in your rather narrow and uninformed mind. By completely eschewing the well-defined terms of economics and making baseless, but yet still common, assumptions you compeletely negate any authority you have to use the term "natural monopoly" in your original posting.
Lamina's got some hot products (literally, check out the dissipation!) but Lumileds still leads for point-sources. So Lamina's stuff leads for density across "large" areas because of their packaging technology, not necessrily because of their emitter technology.
I am seriously considering using the Lamina reds and oranges to replace the various like colored lights on my car, sure its more expensive but its still cool.
Where is the 20lb ceiling-mount livingroom projector for $1000, that does 1024x768 @2000lm? Maybe this Mitsubishi projector will help compete them into existence.
Not quite $1K, but it does exceed your lumens requirement:
Note: I do not in any way endorse tigerdirect - their customer is service is atrocious and they appear to have been astroturfing bizrate for quite some time. BUT, if they can manage to ship you a new and undamaged unit, you'll never have to deal with their customer disservice, and the odds on that are relatively good.
Just make sure you give them a throw-away email address, they are merciless spammers and spam-list renters.
The protection of intellectual property - like all property - has a direct causal relationship to it's existence. Extinguish the protection, you extinguish the development of all new IP.
Which is false and demonstrably so - see any BSD licensed software and to a lesser extent, GPL software (lesser only that the GPL is a "hack" of copyright, intended to use copyright to avoid copyright and would not be necessary in a world with no copyright).
Second, you make (the designed in) mistake of equating "intellectual property" with real property. I say "designed in" because calling ideas "property" is only a recent phenomenon (early 1960s) and has been promulgated by the people and businesses that benefit from people making that error. From an economic perspective, real property is congestible, exhaustible and excludable - ideas are not, they are completely non-rival thus treating them like real property when they have so few fundamental attributes in common is probably an inefficient use of them.
But ultimately all property is dependant on enforcement by the law/courts. That doesn't make my ownership of my car coercive if I turn to the gov'ment to help me preserve my ownership of it
Given reasonably sufficient force and resources, you can defend real property without the aid of law. However, you can not do the same for ideas. Once another person "has" your ideas, you can not reasonably prevent them from telling other people your ideas. Someone seeing your car does not automatically enable them to drive off with it -- your car is excludable, your ideas are not.
However a point to consider, if you actually treat your ideas like real property by keeping them under "lock and key" and not giving anyone access to them (equivalent of not "giving away" your real property), then it is reasonably possible to prevent them from being disseminated without resorting to law. In other words, "intellectual property" and "real property" are roughly equivalent if treated in an equivalent manner. Of course this treatment severely curtails the usefulness of any ideas treated so, but then so does government enforcement of the copyright monopoly on ideas too.
So, ultimately copyright, and the economics of it, only exists by the will of the government, but real property would exist without a government and would still be be subject to the same laws of economics. Therefore, MS's business is built on (by your definition) unnatural copyright.
Lets stop pussy footing around. There are no ownership or copyright issues.
Bingo! Everybody gets paid up front, no residuals, no licensing fees, nada. A day's pay for a day's work and the end result is effectively in the public domain.
So no need for commercials (show's paid for, with a decent profit margin built in), no need for distributors (p2p will do it for "free") and no need for "pirate crackdowns." ("information wants to be free" so LET IT)
If the fans can't foot the entire bill, get an or two advertiser willing to pay for product placement. If it were a new creation instead of Star Trek you could even sell merchandising rights to partially fund production.
Bingo. Having the prints of a missing person, child or adult, on file will not help one bit to locate them at all. You only compromise your children's security by getting them printed.
And while it is probably better to get "closure" than not, by identifying the body of a dead missing person there are other ways to identify most bodies and when you realize how very few children are actually abducted by strangers (versus divorced parents) then it becomes obvious that it makes a whole lot more sense to be worrying about the regular stuff, like falling out of a tree or getting a skinned knee learning how to ride a bicycle than it does to worry about such an extremely rare event.
They don't ask for picture ID any more on credit cards.
For decades now it has been a violation of the standard merchant agreement to require identification in order to use a credit card. The credit companies wish for cards to be as easy to use as cash, and cash rquires no other id. Thus they forbid, except in special circumstances, the merchants from requiring any other identification.
The merchant is allowed to ask for, but they are not allowed to require, id to complete a transaction.
You are lucky that you have not had your card confiscated. The standard merchant agreement signed by almost all merchants specifies that the card can have only two legal states, 1) unsigned, which they must ask you to sign before you are allowed to use it and 2) valid signature.
Any other deviation and they are required to confiscate and destory the card. Most minimum wage clerks have no clue about that requirement and of those that do, few wish to risk confronting the customer. But there are a few who are informed and don't care about the risk, you will eventually run into one and find yourself without a valid credit card.
TCPA is primarily about enabling DRM. Just because this article does not spell out the entire context of the topic and instead focuses in on specific implementation details does not mean discussion of the broader issues is off-topic. In fact, allowing such a narrowly focused article to pass without comment would be a bad thing because it makes it very easy for people unfamiliar with the context of TCPA and DRM to assume that TCPA is all good and light.
You may dispute that TCPA is primarily about enabling DRM, but there is enough evidence to support the theory as to at least justify its mention here.
Minna is absolutely correct with respect to the larger issues of DRM. If you don't like the specific reference to Microsoft, replace it with "megalocorp." The end result is the same.
Firewire/5C copy prevention system is a handshaking protocol with key exchange. So, if a non-5c complaient recorder were able to get itself set up to record the bitstream it would either block the handshaking and no data would flow, or it would passively record the data but when playback time came it would not be able to do the handshaking required to enable the tv to decode the stored bitstream.
I'm sure there are holes in 5C implementations, but they won't be as easy to find as that.
Needless to say we all knew that the rich kids at the private school down the road were being taught how to hire losers, or how to stay rich, so there was never any real mystery as to why things were the way they were, but I still feel sorry for my classmates.
I went to a rich-kid high-school on scholarship - the kind where parents from all across the country (and for that matter, the world) send their kids to and pay top dollar for the privilege. They weren't teaching anything like that and we did not have a high-school version of skull and bones either.
But there was no "career counseling" - everyone was expected to go to college, we even had alums officially come back and tell us what to expect from college. The only real difference from the public schools (american-style "public" not british-style) was the much higher quality and intensity of academics (class on saturday, etc).
Your are right that is unlikely we will see 1080p over the air. But not for technical reasons, more like inertia. 1080p is not supported by most commercial broadcast equipment, so 1080p programming will only benefit a relatively few stations. By the time 1080p support is common, tv stations may no longer exist in a recognizable form.
However, most currently broadcast 1080i material is just 1080p in disguise. Just about anything shot on film can be converted from 1080i to the original 1080p the same way the a progressive DVD player converts 480i to 480p - "reverse telecine." In fact, you can often convert a 1080i mpeg HDTV transport stream to a 1080p mpeg transport stream without having to do any re-encoding, just re-arrange the bits.
People tend to think that HDMI is just DVI+AUDIO wrapped in copy-prevention. But there is at least one technical improvement over DVI for video - support of YCbCr (aka "component video").
DVI is RGB only while mpeg video (and I suspect, most other forms of compressed video) is natively YCbCr. The colorspace conversion from YCbCr to RGB can, and often is, lossy. How lossy depends on the quality of your equipment. Nowadays I think that all HDMI-equipped displays are natively RGB. But that may change and even today it is possible that the YCbCr converter in your display is better than the converter in your DVD player or HDTV tuner.
Technically DVI could support YCbCr, but the standard currently does not while HDMI must support it in addition to RGB so all (correctly implemented) HDMI devices support digital YCbCr today.
Additionally, you skipped the other possibilities that I listed
Because I was editing for readability, all your points apply just as much to audio ripped lossless as they do ripped lossy. In other words, the whole point was meangingless which is why Yoda answered you.
Lossy audio compression works completely differently: it *picks* which frequencies to toss, based on how important they are. There are a number of heuristics used, all designed to model the human ability to hear - signal strength, human sensitivity to the frequency, frequency masking, etc. Consequently, lossy compression is a *much better* way to choose which signals to lose than the arbitray cutoff imposed by the sampling rate.
The key element you ignore is that the first thing most, if not all, of these heuristics do is toss the high frequencies because the vast majority of humans aren't sensitive enough to them to make them worth the bit-budget. For example, by age 35 the average human male is unable to hear much beyond 16KHz, never mind 40KHz. The heuristics that don't toss hi-freqs pay for it with other artifacts like pre-echo and over-ring which are even more of a distraction to the average "audophile." You come up with an audiophile lossy compression algorithm and maybe that will change, but until then the algorithms available to the average user today aren't going to do much with higher sample rates.
FWIW, its not all bad. Just as Fox News has devotees for its (and for the most part, all the big old-media news sources') fear-mongering - some of us have decided that focusing on news sources that are not fear-mongering is a good thing and interneted news has made that much more feasible.
Tridgell gets an academic-like job where he's called a 'fellow' while he does business programming
Ain't nuthin special about being a "fellow."
The employee designation "fellow" is commonly used by all the big corps (HP, IBM, GE, MS, you-name-it) for people who do cutting-edge type of work, pure research or not, which the company expects to eventually trickle down to their product lines. Nobody buys Samba from Tridgell, nobody buys Linux from Linus. But lots of people buy them in distributions and on hardware that OSDL member companies produce.
Since when does Hong Kong care about copyright/patent enforcement?
It is probably an example to puff up US Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans who was just in China pushing for more IP enforcement. It seems that in the last few years China has put a bunch of copyright laws on the books, but enforcement has been rather lax resulting in more "piracy" than before China got Most Favored Nation trading status.
China wants the US to confer "market economy" status to their country (which makes it even easier to "dump") and the US wants copyright cartel enforcement. This arrest is probably just headline fodder to bostler whatever promises China made to Evans.
Bummers for the defendant, it sucks to be made a political example in any country, but he'll probably get something ridiculous like 20 years to life, or maybe even executed.
who is to say whether you'll have everything that you'll want for the future? What if you decide that you want cd covers and and there's a neat piece of hardware to simplify their creation? What if the future is multichannel sound?
Yoda says, This does not my premise invalidate. Appliable equal to lossy as lossless.
On that latter topic, you'd have a much higher file quality if you did lossy compression on an 88200 disc than if you did lossless on a 41000. So as far as recording goes, if you can up your sample rate and use lossy compression, do it.
Yoda says, Lossy algorithms understand you not. At 44Khz artifacts likely same as 88Khz as psychoacoustic model likely throws out same sounds at bitrate any.
Slashdot Mirror
Heheheh. Because there was no means of enforcing IP, works were created by commission. Someone had to pay for them, and there was only one. Also, the number of people who could be sustained by the market was minimal - IP wasn't much of an issue because distribution wasn't possible.
/. losers who similarly hate IP because they never really created any.
Of course there were means of "enforcing IP" then same means as today - tie to a physical object like a book or a DVD or canvas and then make sure nobody steals the physical object.
The key point is that prior to Gutenberg, distribution of the creation beyond the comissioner was infeasible on anything approaching a large scale so the economic model HAD to be: pay now, get result later.
After the press was created, the reach of distribution far exceeded the reach of feasible conmissioning - thus to take advantage of this new distribution technology, a new economic model came about: work now, get paid in bits and pieces later.
Today we have the internet. Distribution has reached its logical end - effectively infinite distribution for close to no cost at all. Because distribution is effectively zero cost, everyone can be a distributor on the internet and thus "enforcing IP" has, for the first time, reached the point of impossibility.
But, the internet changed something else too - it increased the range of the original commission model. We see it all the time on enthusiast websites for all manner of products like cars, computers, model airplanes, etc - the "group buy" where enough people pool their money to purchase some product at either a signficant discount if it is "off the shelf" or, just as commonly, to bring into existence a custom designed product.
The internet currently reaches close to a billion people, that's a HUGE market. Working on comission is now completely feasible once again and in fact better suited to the current reality that "enforcing IP" is no longer feasible.
It's like you have your own little world - you define reasonable force, you define economic terms. etc. Reasonable force can't prevent people from communicating?
Well aren't you the perfect example of the pot being black. Come on, you are the one who wants to redefine the term "natural monopoly" and ignore the textbook definitions of other economic terms used in this discussion. Furthermore, just what do you consider reasonable? What exactly can you, or even the USA, do to prevent 10 million people across fiften different countries in Asia from sharing a popular mp3 song or mpg video among themselves? Are you going to "liberate" Malaysia over a bunch of internet pirates?
You are also lucky you will have to earn a living from debating - in court or elsewhere, else your dissociation with reality might become as apparent to you as it would to anyone other than the
Sorry bub, but your characterization is far from the truth. I work soley on comission to create and improve software for my clients. Have been doing so for close to a decade now. I don't "hate IP" - I just understand that it is an economic model whose time has long passed. It's clear that I'm right here in the middle of the current reality while you are living in yesterday's world.
And GPL is not a hack. An associate of mine specializing in these laws did a study on the enforcability of GPL for the World Bank. His conclusion was that it passed all the necessary tests to stand up in the US and elsewhere - and he has also counseled his developer clients not to use GPL for this reason - because they may be forced to open up their otherwise closed software.
... silly. I can use the same force to defend IP. It's the same kind of force the law would use - I'd come to your house and tear your computer through the wall. Or disconnect your electricity. It's the same kind of force I'd use to prevent you from stealing my car.
You do not understand the definition of the word hack. Your description of the GPL is exactly what qualifies it as a hack. If you don't believe the technical definition, just look at the actual name "copyleft" - clearly a play on words that demonstrates the intent to subvert the very system that allows it to exist.
So what do you tell authors? Or composers? If their deal is this - I will only create if you allow me to profit in the free market from my creation, and you tell them they can't, do you really think that entire industries of employed, productive people would exist anymore around these industries? The test of an idea is it's effect. The effect of elimintating IP protections is the equivilant of eliminating real property protections.
Again FALSE. How do you think authors, composers, et al were compensated BEFORE copyright became widespread (circa Gutenberg - and even then it was primarily a means of taxation, not compensation). You can't seriously contend that no artistic creation occurred before the printing press was invented.
If I could not take the profit from my restaurant, it would not exist.
FALSE ANALOGY. You can sell your restraunt outright, you can sell the services of your restraunt but in each case value is created and compensated for directly. However, you can not sell your restraunt more than once, nor can you cook a single meal once and feed it to customers over and over again. Yet, just like real proprety you CAN lock up your ideas and then sell access to them a single time.
This is where I decide to stop and ignore you. Reasonably sufficient force can only be used to defend real property but not IP? That's
Reasonable force can not prevent a person from communicating. Furthermore, reasonable force can certainly not prevent thousands of people from communicating.
Case closed.
Only in your rather narrow and uninformed mind. By completely eschewing the well-defined terms of economics and making baseless, but yet still common, assumptions you compeletely negate any authority you have to use the term "natural monopoly" in your original posting.
Lamina's got some hot products (literally, check out the dissipation!) but Lumileds still leads for point-sources. So Lamina's stuff leads for density across "large" areas because of their packaging technology, not necessrily because of their emitter technology.
I am seriously considering using the Lamina reds and oranges to replace the various like colored lights on my car, sure its more expensive but its still cool.
Where is the 20lb ceiling-mount livingroom projector for $1000, that does 1024x768 @2000lm? Maybe this Mitsubishi projector will help compete them into existence.
Not quite $1K, but it does exceed your lumens requirement:
Optoma 749 2300 lumens, 1024x768 @ $1300.
Note: I do not in any way endorse tigerdirect - their customer is service is atrocious and they appear to have been astroturfing bizrate for quite some time. BUT, if they can manage to ship you a new and undamaged unit, you'll never have to deal with their customer disservice, and the odds on that are relatively good.
Just make sure you give them a throw-away email address, they are merciless spammers and spam-list renters.
You said:
The protection of intellectual property - like all property - has a direct causal relationship to it's existence. Extinguish the protection, you extinguish the development of all new IP.
Which is false and demonstrably so - see any BSD licensed software and to a lesser extent, GPL software (lesser only that the GPL is a "hack" of copyright, intended to use copyright to avoid copyright and would not be necessary in a world with no copyright).
Second, you make (the designed in) mistake of equating "intellectual property" with real property. I say "designed in" because calling ideas "property" is only a recent phenomenon (early 1960s) and has been promulgated by the people and businesses that benefit from people making that error. From an economic perspective, real property is congestible, exhaustible and excludable - ideas are not, they are completely non-rival thus treating them like real property when they have so few fundamental attributes in common is probably an inefficient use of them.
But ultimately all property is dependant on enforcement by the law/courts. That doesn't make my ownership of my car coercive if I turn to the gov'ment to help me preserve my ownership of it
Given reasonably sufficient force and resources, you can defend real property without the aid of law. However, you can not do the same for ideas. Once another person "has" your ideas, you can not reasonably prevent them from telling other people your ideas. Someone seeing your car does not automatically enable them to drive off with it -- your car is excludable, your ideas are not.
However a point to consider, if you actually treat your ideas like real property by keeping them under "lock and key" and not giving anyone access to them (equivalent of not "giving away" your real property), then it is reasonably possible to prevent them from being disseminated without resorting to law. In other words, "intellectual property" and "real property" are roughly equivalent if treated in an equivalent manner. Of course this treatment severely curtails the usefulness of any ideas treated so, but then so does government enforcement of the copyright monopoly on ideas too.
So, ultimately copyright, and the economics of it, only exists by the will of the government, but real property would exist without a government and would still be be subject to the same laws of economics. Therefore, MS's business is built on (by your definition) unnatural copyright.
One flaw in your reasoning is that MS's entire business (ok, not the mice and keyboards part) is built on the unnatural monopoly of copyright.
Lets stop pussy footing around. There are no ownership or copyright issues.
Bingo! Everybody gets paid up front, no residuals, no licensing fees, nada. A day's pay for a day's work and the end result is effectively in the public domain.
So no need for commercials (show's paid for, with a decent profit margin built in), no need for distributors (p2p will do it for "free") and no need for "pirate crackdowns." ("information wants to be free" so LET IT)
If the fans can't foot the entire bill, get an or two advertiser willing to pay for product placement. If it were a new creation instead of Star Trek you could even sell merchandising rights to partially fund production.
Bingo. Having the prints of a missing person, child or adult, on file will not help one bit to locate them at all. You only compromise your children's security by getting them printed.
And while it is probably better to get "closure" than not, by identifying the body of a dead missing person there are other ways to identify most bodies and when you realize how very few children are actually abducted by strangers (versus divorced parents) then it becomes obvious that it makes a whole lot more sense to be worrying about the regular stuff, like falling out of a tree or getting a skinned knee learning how to ride a bicycle than it does to worry about such an extremely rare event.
Chalk it up to the American culture of fear.
They don't ask for picture ID any more on credit cards.
For decades now it has been a violation of the standard merchant agreement to require identification in order to use a credit card. The credit companies wish for cards to be as easy to use as cash, and cash rquires no other id. Thus they forbid, except in special circumstances, the merchants from requiring any other identification.
The merchant is allowed to ask for, but they are not allowed to require, id to complete a transaction.
You are lucky that you have not had your card confiscated. The standard merchant agreement signed by almost all merchants specifies that the card can have only two legal states, 1) unsigned, which they must ask you to sign before you are allowed to use it and 2) valid signature.
Any other deviation and they are required to confiscate and destory the card. Most minimum wage clerks have no clue about that requirement and of those that do, few wish to risk confronting the customer. But there are a few who are informed and don't care about the risk, you will eventually run into one and find yourself without a valid credit card.
Stargate and Battlestar Galactica are both doing very well on Friday
BSG gets around 2.4M viewers per episode too. At least if you believe the Nielson ratings.
You lack context.
TCPA is primarily about enabling DRM. Just because this article does not spell out the entire context of the topic and instead focuses in on specific implementation details does not mean discussion of the broader issues is off-topic. In fact, allowing such a narrowly focused article to pass without comment would be a bad thing because it makes it very easy for people unfamiliar with the context of TCPA and DRM to assume that TCPA is all good and light.
You may dispute that TCPA is primarily about enabling DRM, but there is enough evidence to support the theory as to at least justify its mention here.
Minna is absolutely correct with respect to the larger issues of DRM.
If you don't like the specific reference to Microsoft, replace it with "megalocorp."
The end result is the same.
Actually...Bram Cohen isn't living off of paypal donations... he's happily employed by VALVe.
Yeah, but Valve still pays him via paypal donations.
Won't work.
Firewire/5C copy prevention system is a handshaking protocol with key exchange. So, if a non-5c complaient recorder were able to get itself set up to record the bitstream it would either block the handshaking and no data would flow, or it would passively record the data but when playback time came it would not be able to do the handshaking required to enable the tv to decode the stored bitstream.
I'm sure there are holes in 5C implementations, but they won't be as easy to find as that.
Needless to say we all knew that the rich kids at the private school down the road were being taught how to hire losers, or how to stay rich, so there was never any real mystery as to why things were the way they were, but I still feel sorry for my classmates.
I went to a rich-kid high-school on scholarship - the kind where parents from all across the country (and for that matter, the world) send their kids to and pay top dollar for the privilege. They weren't teaching anything like that and we did not have a high-school version of skull and bones either.
But there was no "career counseling" - everyone was expected to go to college, we even had alums officially come back and tell us what to expect from college. The only real difference from the public schools (american-style "public" not british-style) was the much higher quality and intensity of academics (class on saturday, etc).
Youth in Asia is the answer. Either kind.
Your are right that is unlikely we will see 1080p over the air. But not for technical reasons, more like inertia. 1080p is not supported by most commercial broadcast equipment, so 1080p programming will only benefit a relatively few stations. By the time 1080p support is common, tv stations may no longer exist in a recognizable form.
However, most currently broadcast 1080i material is just 1080p in disguise. Just about anything shot on film can be converted from 1080i to the original 1080p the same way the a progressive DVD player converts 480i to 480p - "reverse telecine." In fact, you can often convert a 1080i mpeg HDTV transport stream to a 1080p mpeg transport stream without having to do any re-encoding, just re-arrange the bits.
People tend to think that HDMI is just DVI+AUDIO wrapped in copy-prevention. But there is at least one technical improvement over DVI for video - support of YCbCr (aka "component video").
DVI is RGB only while mpeg video (and I suspect, most other forms of compressed video) is natively YCbCr. The colorspace conversion from YCbCr to RGB can, and often is, lossy. How lossy depends on the quality of your equipment. Nowadays I think that all HDMI-equipped displays are natively RGB. But that may change and even today it is possible that the YCbCr converter in your display is better than the converter in your DVD player or HDTV tuner.
Technically DVI could support YCbCr, but the standard currently does not while HDMI must support it in addition to RGB so all (correctly implemented) HDMI devices support digital YCbCr today.
Additionally, you skipped the other possibilities that I listed
Because I was editing for readability, all your points apply just as much to audio ripped lossless as they do ripped lossy. In other words, the whole point was meangingless which is why Yoda answered you.
Lossy audio compression works completely differently: it *picks* which frequencies to toss, based on how important they are. There are a number of heuristics used, all designed to model the human ability to hear - signal strength, human sensitivity to the frequency, frequency masking, etc. Consequently, lossy compression is a *much better* way to choose which signals to lose than the arbitray cutoff imposed by the sampling rate.
The key element you ignore is that the first thing most, if not all, of these heuristics do is toss the high frequencies because the vast majority of humans aren't sensitive enough to them to make them worth the bit-budget. For example, by age 35 the average human male is unable to hear much beyond 16KHz, never mind 40KHz. The heuristics that don't toss hi-freqs pay for it with other artifacts like pre-echo and over-ring which are even more of a distraction to the average "audophile." You come up with an audiophile lossy compression algorithm and maybe that will change, but until then the algorithms available to the average user today aren't going to do much with higher sample rates.
FWIW, its not all bad. Just as Fox News has devotees for its (and for the most part, all the big old-media news sources') fear-mongering - some of us have decided that focusing on news sources that are not fear-mongering is a good thing and interneted news has made that much more feasible.
Tridgell gets an academic-like job where he's called a 'fellow' while he does business programming
Ain't nuthin special about being a "fellow."
The employee designation "fellow" is commonly used by all the big corps (HP, IBM, GE, MS, you-name-it) for people who do cutting-edge type of work, pure research or not, which the company expects to eventually trickle down to their product lines. Nobody buys Samba from Tridgell, nobody buys Linux from Linus. But lots of people buy them in distributions and on hardware that OSDL member companies produce.
Since when does Hong Kong care about copyright/patent enforcement?
It is probably an example to puff up US Secretary of Commerce Donald Evans who was just in China pushing for more IP enforcement. It seems that in the last few years China has put a bunch of copyright laws on the books, but enforcement has been rather lax resulting in more "piracy" than before China got Most Favored Nation trading status.
China wants the US to confer "market economy" status to their country (which makes it even easier to "dump") and the US wants copyright cartel enforcement. This arrest is probably just headline fodder to bostler whatever promises China made to Evans.
Bummers for the defendant, it sucks to be made a political example in any country, but he'll probably get something ridiculous like 20 years to life, or maybe even executed.
The first rule of V is, do not talk about V.
who is to say whether you'll have everything that you'll want for the future? What if you decide that you want cd covers and and there's a neat piece of hardware to simplify their creation? What if the future is multichannel sound?
Yoda says, This does not my premise invalidate. Appliable equal to lossy as lossless.
On that latter topic, you'd have a much higher file quality if you did lossy compression on an 88200 disc than if you did lossless on a 41000. So as far as recording goes, if you can up your sample rate and use lossy compression, do it.
Yoda says, Lossy algorithms understand you not. At 44Khz artifacts likely same as 88Khz as psychoacoustic model likely throws out same sounds at bitrate any.