All you've said is that they're a website, with a TV show. Well, so? The Daily Show has a website too.
I think we can all grasp that there's some kind of TV show involved.
But what's the code *do*?
Is it a codec? Is it a message board implementation? Is it something akin to Slashdot's code? Is it content management? Is it a tool for the show's producers to use when putting the show together? Is it some kind of chat thing?
Nobody's explained *that*, and *that* ought to have been in the slashdot post.
"see our what is zed [zed.cbc.ca] page for more details"
That page tells me nothing about the software, or why anyone in creation ought to care that it's being open sourced. Or even *what* is being open sourced.
Is the host chick being open sourced? I could get behind that.
"Well if we explained what it is, you would still have to READ what we TYPE. This has already been done in the article, so GO RTFA."
But why should anyone care about it? Why should anyone waste their time RTFA'ing when it could turn out to be "Pointcast for agricultural reports", and nobody particularly cares about being able to get live access to pork future prices.
The slashdot post is remarkably content-free. All it says is that the CBC has released *something*, which does something, which practically nobody on the planet has any familiarity with.
The sibling comment to yours says it's some kind of TV/Web convergence thing. That still says *nothing* to me.
Er, my statement, which you quoted, was assuming the non-existence of Indian patent law.
I was giving an example of a potential exploit of a software patent-free India. The existence of this exploit is the sort of thing which would lead non-Indian companies (and nations) to pressure India to enact software patents. That pressure would take the form of threats to use non-Indian offshore development service providers, thus jeopardizing a strong growth sector in India.
The idea was not that the technology would be patented in India, despite being patented elsewhere by someone else. The idea was that the technology described by a US patent would be used in India, and if India had no legal concept of software patents, that patent violation would be shielded to some degree.
ie, if a US company wanted to take advantage of someone else's patent, without licensing it, they'd hire an Indian firm to implement the patent and operate the resulting software. The US firm might then ship data over to be processed with the patented technique, for example. (Perhaps the patent covers a software method for identifying bad loan candidates. They could send over loan applicant data, and it would be processed by the Indian firm, using the patented technique, and then the results would be returned to the US firm.)
The US company would not be selling a product in the US which used the patent, but they'd be obtaining benefit from use of the patent.
Thus the patent violation would be held at arms' length, and performed by another company, in another country, where software patents are not enforced.
Microsoft can trot out a list of companies participating in their latest 'innovation', but no matter how many companies sign up at the start, it really says nothing about the eventual likely success or failure of the system.
Too many people (especially pundits) see such a list and take it as irrefutable evidence that the thing in question is destined to take over the industry.
Well, that's kinda what I'm on about, but it'd be more automated and appliance-like.
Say you've got a dual-head setup, with a 51" main TV and a 23" LCD display on the side. The 23" is in portrait orientation.
You're watching a football game. The regular TV broadcast is on the main 51" TV, and that's basically the same as anyone else sees. When the main TV program focuses on a player, the MCE would automatically be triggered to bring up the player's stats on the 23" display, in a little gee-whiz infographic. Maybe it could download a bunch of Flash nuggets at the start of the program, and they'd be displayed as needed.
Another idea would be to have all the information which normally is displayed on-screen during a game transmitted as data, which would be composited onto the screen by the viewer's equipment. If the user has multiple monitors, he could configure where it should draw the information during the game, leaving the action unobscured on the main TV. Otherwise, the default would be to draw it as is done now.
Basically, Microsoft, or another vendor, should produce media center devices that can actively manipulate broadcast video and data, in real-time. Then they should work with broadcasters to produce feeds that the MCE can operate on to create new, customized, viewing experiences.
Or, to put it another way, they need to work with media people to produce events for consumers with a configurable video wall at home, not just a single TV.
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/chipshots/amd/286.ht ml
"The Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) 286 microprocessor, fabricated and distributed under license from Intel, utilizes identical architecture and the source code developed for the i80286 chip. AMD boosted Intel's original 6, 10, and 12 megahertz clock speed versions, which are powered at 5 volts, to standard models featuring higher speeds ranging up to 20 megahertz. During the mid-1980s, AMD launched the microprocessor clone market with their 286A processor, which followed their in-house version of the 287 math coprocessor. Released in 12 and 16 megahertz clock speeds, the 286A model did not break new ground, but did feature expanded memory specifications (EMS) and the ability to reassume protected mode, neither which was supported by the Intel 286."
If MCE (or a competitor) supported multiple-head TV setups, and worked with media execs to come up with innovative ways to use the extra displays in meaningful ways, they'd win.
But if MCE is perceived as being a TiVO, then simpler TiVO-style appliances will win.
MCE needs to demonstrate a clear advantage or difference. A multi-head setup, with a main TV and a smaller second TV showing synchronized infographics for a sporting event or news broadcast, would give excellent demo.
Sorry to follow myself up, but to be clear, what I'm talking about are the big, solid plastic cup - style hearing protectors that cover your whole ear.
They look like really old-school headphones, only they're not made of metal.
I have some cheap (approx $10) headphone-style hearing protectors I picked up in the sporting gear section of Wal-Mart.
They work pretty well, and are pretty comfortable.
In-ear plugs make my ears feel all nasty and waxy after a little while, and I don't like the way they seem to enhance perception of bone-conducted internal sounds.
"The interesting thing is that the whole fast-track visa system was promoted heavily to the gov't by some of the biggest IT and management consultancies, who... can you see it coming?... yes, hired loads of cheap immigrant programmers/managers but continued to charge huge rates for their work, thus causing layoffs or depressed salaries for British workers, and giving themselves even greater profits! "
Yeah, I think a lot of the demand for outsourcing comes from companies who spend lots of money on overpriced consultancies like Accenture, who pay their employees (especially the overseas ones) a fraction of what they are being billed at.
Back in the 90s, a friend talked about some work he did on a contract, cleaning up bad NeXTSTEP code implemented by some Perot Systems consultants who preceeded him. The sucky Perot people charged significantly more than my friend, who wasn't cheap.
"One interesting event would be a new graphical/A.I. type programming language that would make programming more like 'manufacturing' cars using robotics.
Someone needs to write these tools and the advantage is back to GOOD ole USA(yeah)."
If an outsourced development service provider in India were to swipe some patented software tech, and start reusing it in code for various other clients, who come from all over the world, it could be very difficult to find violations. Especially if the software it ends up in is for vertical markets or internal corporate software, as opposed to widely distributed and widely promoted retail apps.
If software isn't patentable in India, then you might have a hard time trying to subpoena records from the outsourcing company, which would make it difficult to find out that your patent was violated and if so, where your patent was used.
You'd need that information in order to sue in the other countries where software patents are enforced and the violating software is in use.
It's one thing to figure out that your patent's been swiped when you're STAC and the swiper is Microsoft, and their product is ubiquitous. It's another thing to spot a violation when the patent is being violated by software used by a company in Liechtenstein.
(Note, I'm not saying I agree with software patents. I'm just describing the likely thought process.)
This was probably driven by demand from companies who want to outsource to India.
Consider: Company outsources development to India. Their Indian developers learn some patented method in the code. The developers then leave, go to another company, and develop code that infringes on the patent.
Without software patents, the patent holder would have no legal remedy they could seek.
It might even be conceivable that a US company with a desire to step on someone else's patent could outsource the patent violation to India, and make the violating code the property of an Indian subsidiary.
If India wants companies to do the world's development, then the world's businesses are going to demand strong IP protection.
The BBC's map of affected areas suggests that Bangladesh escaped damage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4126019.stm
This seems odd, because Bangladesh is a notably low-lying country, in a river delta/flood plain, densely populated, and with a history of devastation by tsunamis and flooding.
In 1991, apparently, 138,000 Bangladeshis were killed by a tsunami.
If the BBC is correct, then it seems to be the only nation in the region that escaped serious damage.
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why this would be?
I hope this is true - the alternative explanation would be that the whole country was so completely wiped out that word never got out, and nobody else noticed them missing.
If you have a Mac, I believe you can use a product called Nicecast, from Rogue Amoeba. It'll take the audio from any running application and turn it into an MP3 stream.
So, you could set up RealPlayer, with the BBC world service running, and stream the audio to anything that can consume an MP3 stream.
It costs $40 and a free demo is available.
I just confirmed on my Mac that I could use it to stream RealAudio to iTunes (which doesn't do Real natively. I did have a problem connecting from other computers, which may be a networking problem peculiar to my setup.
Slashdot Mirror
what exactly is being open sourced.
All you've said is that they're a website, with a TV show. Well, so? The Daily Show has a website too.
I think we can all grasp that there's some kind of TV show involved.
But what's the code *do*?
Is it a codec? Is it a message board implementation? Is it something akin to Slashdot's code? Is it content management? Is it a tool for the show's producers to use when putting the show together? Is it some kind of chat thing?
Nobody's explained *that*, and *that* ought to have been in the slashdot post.
"see our what is zed [zed.cbc.ca] page for more details"
That page tells me nothing about the software, or why anyone in creation ought to care that it's being open sourced. Or even *what* is being open sourced.
Is the host chick being open sourced? I could get behind that.
"Well if we explained what it is, you would still have to READ what we TYPE. This has already been done in the article, so GO RTFA."
But why should anyone care about it? Why should anyone waste their time RTFA'ing when it could turn out to be "Pointcast for agricultural reports", and nobody particularly cares about being able to get live access to pork future prices.
The slashdot post is remarkably content-free. All it says is that the CBC has released *something*, which does something, which practically nobody on the planet has any familiarity with.
The sibling comment to yours says it's some kind of TV/Web convergence thing. That still says *nothing* to me.
Er, my statement, which you quoted, was assuming the non-existence of Indian patent law.
I was giving an example of a potential exploit of a software patent-free India. The existence of this exploit is the sort of thing which would lead non-Indian companies (and nations) to pressure India to enact software patents. That pressure would take the form of threats to use non-Indian offshore development service providers, thus jeopardizing a strong growth sector in India.
The idea was not that the technology would be patented in India, despite being patented elsewhere by someone else. The idea was that the technology described by a US patent would be used in India, and if India had no legal concept of software patents, that patent violation would be shielded to some degree.
ie, if a US company wanted to take advantage of someone else's patent, without licensing it, they'd hire an Indian firm to implement the patent and operate the resulting software. The US firm might then ship data over to be processed with the patented technique, for example. (Perhaps the patent covers a software method for identifying bad loan candidates. They could send over loan applicant data, and it would be processed by the Indian firm, using the patented technique, and then the results would be returned to the US firm.)
The US company would not be selling a product in the US which used the patent, but they'd be obtaining benefit from use of the patent.
Thus the patent violation would be held at arms' length, and performed by another company, in another country, where software patents are not enforced.
Microsoft can trot out a list of companies participating in their latest 'innovation', but no matter how many companies sign up at the start, it really says nothing about the eventual likely success or failure of the system.
Too many people (especially pundits) see such a list and take it as irrefutable evidence that the thing in question is destined to take over the industry.
Well, that's kinda what I'm on about, but it'd be more automated and appliance-like.
Say you've got a dual-head setup, with a 51" main TV and a 23" LCD display on the side. The 23" is in portrait orientation.
You're watching a football game. The regular TV broadcast is on the main 51" TV, and that's basically the same as anyone else sees. When the main TV program focuses on a player, the MCE would automatically be triggered to bring up the player's stats on the 23" display, in a little gee-whiz infographic. Maybe it could download a bunch of Flash nuggets at the start of the program, and they'd be displayed as needed.
Another idea would be to have all the information which normally is displayed on-screen during a game transmitted as data, which would be composited onto the screen by the viewer's equipment. If the user has multiple monitors, he could configure where it should draw the information during the game, leaving the action unobscured on the main TV. Otherwise, the default would be to draw it as is done now.
Basically, Microsoft, or another vendor, should produce media center devices that can actively manipulate broadcast video and data, in real-time. Then they should work with broadcasters to produce feeds that the MCE can operate on to create new, customized, viewing experiences.
Or, to put it another way, they need to work with media people to produce events for consumers with a configurable video wall at home, not just a single TV.
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, there are *two* ARM CPU cores in the iPod's CPU chip package thingy.
For what it's worth.
I want an iPod with a 512x384 display, emulating a Mac Plus (except with much more RAM.)
Only if it runs Dark Castle.
That would be coooool.
Apparently, AMD at first made 286 chips under license from Intel.
Later, they came out with a non-licensed clone 286, which they imaginatively called the "286A".
Here's a picture of an AMD 286. Real close up.
t ml
http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/chipshots/amd/286.h
"The Advanced Micro Devices (AMD) 286 microprocessor, fabricated and distributed under license from Intel, utilizes identical architecture and the source code developed for the i80286 chip. AMD boosted Intel's original 6, 10, and 12 megahertz clock speed versions, which are powered at 5 volts, to standard models featuring higher speeds ranging up to 20 megahertz. During the mid-1980s, AMD launched the microprocessor clone market with their 286A processor, which followed their in-house version of the 287 math coprocessor. Released in 12 and 16 megahertz clock speeds, the 286A model did not break new ground, but did feature expanded memory specifications (EMS) and the ability to reassume protected mode, neither which was supported by the Intel 286."
ever.
So says the title of a chart they post.
Note that the CPUs in the chart start at 600MHz. Who knew the old AMD 286's ran so fast!
If MCE (or a competitor) supported multiple-head TV setups, and worked with media execs to come up with innovative ways to use the extra displays in meaningful ways, they'd win.
But if MCE is perceived as being a TiVO, then simpler TiVO-style appliances will win.
MCE needs to demonstrate a clear advantage or difference. A multi-head setup, with a main TV and a smaller second TV showing synchronized infographics for a sporting event or news broadcast, would give excellent demo.
Sorry to follow myself up, but to be clear, what I'm talking about are the big, solid plastic cup - style hearing protectors that cover your whole ear.
They look like really old-school headphones, only they're not made of metal.
I have some cheap (approx $10) headphone-style hearing protectors I picked up in the sporting gear section of Wal-Mart.
They work pretty well, and are pretty comfortable.
In-ear plugs make my ears feel all nasty and waxy after a little while, and I don't like the way they seem to enhance perception of bone-conducted internal sounds.
"The interesting thing is that the whole fast-track visa system was promoted heavily to the gov't by some of the biggest IT and management consultancies, who... can you see it coming?... yes, hired loads of cheap immigrant programmers/managers but continued to charge huge rates for their work, thus causing layoffs or depressed salaries for British workers, and giving themselves even greater profits! "
Yeah, I think a lot of the demand for outsourcing comes from companies who spend lots of money on overpriced consultancies like Accenture, who pay their employees (especially the overseas ones) a fraction of what they are being billed at.
Back in the 90s, a friend talked about some work he did on a contract, cleaning up bad NeXTSTEP code implemented by some Perot Systems consultants who preceeded him. The sucky Perot people charged significantly more than my friend, who wasn't cheap.
"we're growing white-collar jobs faster than blue-collar stuff,"
No we aren't, we're growing paper-hat jobs faster than either white-collar or blue-collar jobs.
"One interesting event would be a new graphical /A.I. type programming language that would make programming more like 'manufacturing' cars using robotics.
Someone needs to write these tools and the advantage is back to GOOD ole USA(yeah)."
What exactly is the advantage supposed to be?
If an outsourced development service provider in India were to swipe some patented software tech, and start reusing it in code for various other clients, who come from all over the world, it could be very difficult to find violations. Especially if the software it ends up in is for vertical markets or internal corporate software, as opposed to widely distributed and widely promoted retail apps.
If software isn't patentable in India, then you might have a hard time trying to subpoena records from the outsourcing company, which would make it difficult to find out that your patent was violated and if so, where your patent was used.
You'd need that information in order to sue in the other countries where software patents are enforced and the violating software is in use.
It's one thing to figure out that your patent's been swiped when you're STAC and the swiper is Microsoft, and their product is ubiquitous. It's another thing to spot a violation when the patent is being violated by software used by a company in Liechtenstein.
(Note, I'm not saying I agree with software patents. I'm just describing the likely thought process.)
This was probably driven by demand from companies who want to outsource to India.
Consider: Company outsources development to India. Their Indian developers learn some patented method in the code. The developers then leave, go to another company, and develop code that infringes on the patent.
Without software patents, the patent holder would have no legal remedy they could seek.
It might even be conceivable that a US company with a desire to step on someone else's patent could outsource the patent violation to India, and make the violating code the property of an Indian subsidiary.
If India wants companies to do the world's development, then the world's businesses are going to demand strong IP protection.
The BBC's map of affected areas suggests that Bangladesh escaped damage.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_depth/4126019.stm
This seems odd, because Bangladesh is a notably low-lying country, in a river delta/flood plain, densely populated, and with a history of devastation by tsunamis and flooding.
In 1991, apparently, 138,000 Bangladeshis were killed by a tsunami.
If the BBC is correct, then it seems to be the only nation in the region that escaped serious damage.
Anyone want to venture a guess as to why this would be?
I hope this is true - the alternative explanation would be that the whole country was so completely wiped out that word never got out, and nobody else noticed them missing.
If you have a Mac, I believe you can use a product called Nicecast, from Rogue Amoeba. It'll take the audio from any running application and turn it into an MP3 stream.
So, you could set up RealPlayer, with the BBC world service running, and stream the audio to anything that can consume an MP3 stream.
It costs $40 and a free demo is available.
I just confirmed on my Mac that I could use it to stream RealAudio to iTunes (which doesn't do Real natively. I did have a problem connecting from other computers, which may be a networking problem peculiar to my setup.
The slashdot search page is gone. All that's available is the kinda useless Google search field at the bottom of the page.
What's the deal?