Both sets of information — from the car and phone — are sent to Katasi's servers.
Well that's not even a little troubling. I mean, one stop shopping - a central location that stores data on where everyone is all the time, and who is driving where any time someone gets in a car. All because some people drive while texting? That's not overkill at all. Nuh uh.
Betcha law enforcement has a woody about this.
The NSA doesn't need to do covert data surveillance. They just need to start up companies like Google and this Katasi that can do it all right in the open.
No manufacturer wants to sell in small lots. If I called up Intel directly and said I want a hundred of anything, their salesman would laugh at me too. That's what distributors are for. They buy in volume and sell to the little people. Or other board makers that bought more than they need and want to unload some. Looking at Alibaba.com right now I can see more than one, likely in the latter category. Available in any quantity Hardkernel would likely want to buy, and at a price point that should make the boards doable at their current selling price.
I have a hard time believing that their discontinuing the board is linked in any way to Broadcom's refusal to sell to them directly. I would be more inclined to believe they didn't get the interest they thought they would, and that the RPI community's antipathy towards them has given them cold feet.
A radar activated light... so that the driver of a car knows that the cyclist knows that the car is getting closer to the cyclist? Huh? How about just a light that blinks really fast to begin with, and a rearview mirror on the bike so the cyclist can see the car, rather than depend on LEDs to tell him there's a car behind him. Total savings, several thousand dollars and the heartbreak of putting your heart and soul into a project that will never go anywhere.
If the inventor was bound and determined to go high tech, then how about handlebar a mounted smart phone with a rear-facing bluetooth camera. Putting together some image processing software that recognizes something approaching from the rear and notifies the cyclist with a flash or a tone would be a lot easier than building a radar, and you get the added bonus of having the rearview camera image on the smartphone display too.
Either way you are using off-the-shelf hardware. As it stands, at the frequency he's working at, in any kind of weather that diminishes visibility to the point where you'd want to have it, it would be useless. 24GHz will give you returns off of humid portions of air, let alone actual smog, fog, or mist, and doppler isn't the be-all-end-all in an environment where air currents and gusts can move the stuff you're getting returns off of at the speed of a car.
I hope those venture capitalists haven't put real money into this.
What if you could have a shell you had to sit out and plan a custom UI for? What if you had a shell that took one of your most excellently trained typing hands away from the keyboard every command or two to make you do stuff with the mouse. What if you had to pay kickstarter money to get this shell rather than stick with existing open source tools?
++notinterested. I'm not even sure why I'm taking the time t
Sure, local dealerships can fight over the scraps over who will take the lowest cut. And the manufacturer, who sets the "cost" price that the dealerships pay, is who laughs all the way to the bank. So while dickering on a price isn't possible with Tesla, it's also not possible with the existing dealership model. You can't go to ten dealerships and tell them, ok, which of you is going to more aggressively call up Ford and get me a better price from them?
So yes, you can negotiate for a dealership that adds less markup on top of what they pay, why introduce that layer at all anyway?
Most everyone is aware of the ESR. This is just a bandaid over the real problem. Chrome was designed from the very beginning with a rapid release schedule in mind. Release numbers in Chrome are essentially meaningless. Firefox adopted the same rapid release schedule as Chrome in a project that wasn't designed for it either technically or from a project management or project cultural perspective. Firefox gave addon developers the finger as they constantly broke extensions and themes. They carelessly spent valuable resources trying to make Firefox extensions less reliant on versions numbers, which only more badly broke legacy extensions, and rather than using resources to actually help extension authors, they wasted them on semi-automatic systems to catch non-compliant extensions and disable them. Which left users high and dry when they were forced to upgrade (lest they get left behind on security fixes) and lose functionality. More and more UI changes were forced on users, despite in some cases, clear majority opposition. Mozilla has consistently adopted a "we know best" attitude when it comes to what users want. And it shows, with marketshare stagnant. Google is still a major funder of Mozilla, and it's easy to see they think it money well invested. They make Chrome and then pay Mozilla to implode trying to slavishly copy their success.
Who wants to go to an ESR that is a bandaid on a bad system? You just place yourself in the eye of the storm for a short time.
No project can emulate another project and outcompete it. ESR's are not the answer. I personally have moved to PaleMoon. It too is based on a Firefox ESR, but at least they are committed to sane development and user-based UI decisions.
Why elliptic curves when we can go back to good old fashioned original RSA that uses prime number factoring as the problem? No patent nonsense to worry about there.
All we know for sure is that a woman is claiming a man violently attempted to rape her, and the man is apparently denying any such thing happened. As far as the other 99.99999% of the world is concerned, either side could be telling the truth. We have no way to know. We have no appropriate way to find out, unless people are advocating a Boston Marathon type witch hunt. And given what happened there, I am surprised and disappointed that Slashdot posted this.
Shame on Slashdot, and shame on anyone else who engages in the actual debate. Each side may be making public posts about what happened, but that does not make it our responsibility to indulge them in the wrong way to approach this. All this can do is serve to muddy the water to make it harder for any sort of proper official investigation.
So my first reaction was like most people, wondering what caused the staccato marks spread. But then I started asking, hey, isn't this stolen data? Sure the security sucked, but what efforts did he take to correct the problem or bring it to the proper attention before he announced to the entire whole world how anyone could steal personal information on hundreds of thousands of students? With detailed instructions.
This is at best unethical. Hopefully it's illegal in his jurisdiction.
The results look to me like some sort of scaling. In fact, if you load up Gimp, take a photo and go into levels and compress the input levels, when you go back and look at the levels again the graph will look almost identical to what these marks graphs look like. It looks to me like the marks spread is being expanded and the algorithm isn't smooth.
First of all I will concede that yes, you are right that weight is properly measured in newtons. I used the common reference of weight most people think of. However it seems I need to explain a little bit about inertia. I'll try to use small words so even NASA engineers can understand:
Curiosity wheel encounters rock. Wheel exerts force to lift itself over rock. To do this, wheel must lift all of Curiosity. Curiosity masses 900kg. Object at rest tends to stay at rest. Curiosity tends to stay at rest. Curiosity wheel has much inertia to overcome to make Curiosity start moving up and then over rock.
NASA test robot masses 342kg. Test robot wheel encounters rock. Test robot exerts force to lift itself over rock. Test robot has much less inertia to overcome to make test robot start moving up and then over rock. Test robot has few dings. NASA engineers cheer.
“We have the same wheels on our Scarecrow test rover, which weighs the same on Earth as Curiosity weighs on Mars,” Heverly added. “We have driven Scarecrow about 12 kilometers (7.5 miles) in the Marsyard over rocks and slopes much harsher than we expect for Curiosity. There are some dents and holes in these wheels, but the rover is still performing well.”
This sounds an idea from the same people that brought us the Mars Climate Orbiter crater.
The problem with this is that Curiosity weighs 342kg but masses 900kg. Scarecrow weighs and masses 342kg. Whatever Curiosity weighs, it hitting a rock at 1m/s is still 900 newtons of force. Scarecrow hitting a rock at 1m/s is 342 newtons. The fact it drove 12km and has serviceable wheels does not make me feel better.
I wish I knew what specific optimizations give MSVC its performance gains. What I do know is that it''s not trivial. For encryption and compression libraries, MSVC compiled libraries give me a 20% speed gain over GCC. I really want to supply my projects built with a completely open-source tool chain, but I can't justify taking that kind of performance hit for that.
I suspect MSVC produces better performing code less because of any one particular optimization and more because it is way more tightly coupled with the x86/AMD64 architecture. Most open-source compilers are three stage. Front end (language), a (generic) optimizer, and the back-end machine code emitter. The front end and optimizer stages don't know what sort of code will be emitted, so they can't make any assumptions. Does a particular construct cause cache misses? Does it invoke Intel's replay system? They don't know or care. It's only the emitter at the very last stage that is processor-aware, and by then there is only so much you can do. MSVC, on the other hand, is processor-aware from stem to stern. It can make CPU-specific assumptions at a very early stage and can take far greater advantage of SIMD instructions.
Compilers were much better when each one was for one architecture only. When they didn't mess around with intermediary bytecode, and were intended to one thing only - take language X and turn it into machine code Y.
I'm not so concerned about C++11, or compiling speed - which is what most people tout about LLLVM as its big feature. I'm concerned about the quality of the binaries produced. LLVM produces generally inferior code to GCC, which itself is already quite inferior to MSVC. I just wish there was an open source compiler where binary performance was a primary concern, not an afterthought.
Ya, but the thing is, I'd actually expect something like this from Linus. He really doesn't give much of a wet snap about software freedom - the GPL was a choice he made based on convenience (there's a pre-made license over there, and ooooh.... look how shiny and legal it looks). To make something like this actually funny, it should have been someone like Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman.
"MariaDB can only evolve if there are companies that are prepared to either do the development of MariaDB or fund it... The MariaDB Foundation is... actively seeking sponsors" Widenius says.
Wow... Monty is not only taking MySQL back from the company who got it after he sold it, but after getting a billion for it he's now looking for other people to foot the bill.
The only thing Oracle is doing wrong is thinking that no one could be bold enough to try and sell the same product twice.
It's a gutsy move. It really is. Sell MySQL to Sun. Claim Sun's purchaser is doing __________ (fill in the blank with whatever evil nasty thing you like) with it. But that's ok, MariaDB will save you from that. Distributions flood to it to get away from the nasty big evil corporation, and suddenly Monty has legally taken back control of what he sold for a cool billion dollars.
The best part about it, is if Oracle says anything about it, then it just looks like they are trying to trash talk the little guy who is just trying to do the right thing for the community.
And before you think of flaming the idea, remember, Monty is very much the businessman. He almost invented using the GPL as a weapon. He stopped releasing any connector or client licensed as LGPL so he could claim that even using MySQL as a back-end for something else required the entire front-end to be GPLed too - either that or pay him for a commercial license.
The next company to buy something from Monty better get an iron clad agreement never to fork it.
It's simply an equalizer preset that boosts the bass and high end a little.
Funny thing. On the HTC One V phone, a little Beats Audio icon would show up in the status bar when you plugged in headphones. Originally, when you'd drag down your notifications and select Beats Audio, you'd get a dialog where you could select from about 10 different equalizer presets, only one of which was the "Beats Audio" setting. The rest were the typical equalizer presets. Rock, Pop, Bass Boost, Classical, etc. When the first update came out for the, that dialog was replaced with a simple "Enable/Disable" for Beats Audio. I guess they didn't want people realizing this much vaunted "Beats Audio" was just another equalizer preset.
Normally something like this would be the other way around, with the handset or laptop manufacturers licensing some Dolby sound labeling. In this case, the HTC update having deleted all the other equalizer preset settings leads me to suspect that this is a Beats marketing strategy. I'm guessing Beats is going to the handset manufacturers and paying them to advertise "Beats Audio" on their handsets in order to boost name recognition and give them street cred in the audio market. And when HTC dumped Beats Audio in with a bunch of other equalizer presets, I suspect Beats wasn't too happy about that, which caused the change.
I think it's safe to say that most people who have been in the scene from the beginning think the "correct" SI definition of kilo can also fuck off when it comes to computers. As can kebi, mebi and friends. It had been accepted from the beginning that "kilo" meant something just a little different when it came to describing bytes. I accepted that. Everyone accepted that. There was no problem. Even in academic circles, there were no issues.
The problem came with the storage industry and their pious "oh, but that's not what SI says the units mean". If you think that conforming to strict SI is the reason they made their change, then I'd suggest you not accept kool-aid from strangers. Ever. It was marketing greed, nothing more
However, while I think kebi, mebi and friends can fall down a deep dark hole, I actually don't mind using their unit symbols. At least in that way there is no misunderstanding in writing what is meant, and the trickle down effect from intellectual papers where it's vital that it's specified what value is means to more lay writings can occur without changing the unit symbols. But I do not now, nor will I ever, read 500MiB as "five hundred mebibytes".
This would be like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import Word format. Or, for a closer analogy, for them to ask Mozilla not to have Firefox import IE bookmarks when you install it. This type of thing is done all the time. Unless they claim to have a patent on the format in the.ini file, it's totally fair game.
No. This isn't because Linus can't fire him. This wasn't Linus carefully picking his words to get his point across. This was an out of control rant and his explanations about that being his style are ones I do not accept as valid. They seem to be nothing more than excuses for a criminal lack of self discipline.
Mr. Chehab is either competent and made a mistake, or he is not competent and this is chronic. In the latter case, I can understand frustration, but this is exactly what self discipline is for. Because even if it was total incompetence, anger is not ever a valid response to incompetency. I bolded that because it's important. It's never appropriate in response to incompetence. Never. Not by anybody. Regardless of your self-professed management style. Regardless of the stakes. It is a failure of one's personal self discipline, and it is always... always self defeating.
Anger is a proper response in the face of willfulness or maliciousness. And looking at the thread, and in reading quite a number of other threads involving Mr. Chehab, it is clear that he was being neither willful nor malicious. Anger is part of the "fight or flight". It's an adjunct to combat, and the words Linus used were clearly combative. Combat is a response to combat - otherwise you are being an aggressor. In other words, Linus was being nothing more than a schoolyard bully picking on someone for no better reason than he could. It's that simple.
You can be stern, uncompromising, and even lay out consequences for ongoing failure without the anger and get the point across just as well. Here is how Linus' letter should have read:
Are you saying that pulseaudio is entering on some weird loop if the returned value is not -EINVAL? That seems a bug at pulseaudio.
Mauro, this sounds like excuse-making.
It's a bug alright - in the kernel. You've been a kernel maintainer too long to not know that the first rule of kernel maintenance is that if a change results in user programs breaking then it's a bug in the kernel. We never EVER blame the user programs. Don't do that again.
To make matters worse, the entire commit (f0ed2ce840b3) is substandard. You know that ENOENT is not a valid error return from an ioctl. Never has been, never will be. ENOENT means "No such file and directory", and is for path operations. ioctl's are done on files that have already been opened, there's no way that ENOENT would ever be valid.
So, on a first glance, this doesn't sound like a regression, but, instead, it looks tha pulseaudio/tumbleweed has some serious bugs and/or regressions.
I don't want to see this sort of excuse-making from a kernel maintainer again.
I'm going to apply Rafael's patch directly myself. My taking time and effort to apply fixes directly for problems you've introduced means your work has reduced overall efficiency. Make sure that doesn't happen again.
Seriously.
WE DO NOT BREAK USERSPACE!
I'm frustrated because your whole email was wrong, and the patch that broke things was substandard. The fact that you seem to try to make *excuses* for breaking user space and blame some external program that *used* to work, is just not how we work.
I didn't say you get to use violence as a remedy, I'm saying that the reality is that people were using violence as a remedy and that Youtube did the correct thing. It's fine for some airy-fairy rights-obsessed intellectual in the EFF to say that all censorship is wrong, but there were real people with real guns at peoples heads. Which innocent are you willing to sacrifice for the ideal of never taking a video off of Youtube? A video made with the intention to inflame hatred.
I'll tell you what, hero... you want to stand up for rights? Get a nice big tablet, hang it off your chest, and put that video on it while walking around in Libya. I will seriously pay for the tablet and the plane ticket to Libya. You and I both know I will only be out for a one-way ticket.
If YOU want to make a point about censorship.... then YOU go make your point. Put your own life on the line. Youtube execs acted in good faith to save lives in a terrible situation. They decided they weren't going to play with other people's lives. And good for them!
Slashdot Mirror
Well that's not even a little troubling. I mean, one stop shopping - a central location that stores data on where everyone is all the time, and who is driving where any time someone gets in a car. All because some people drive while texting? That's not overkill at all. Nuh uh.
Betcha law enforcement has a woody about this.
The NSA doesn't need to do covert data surveillance. They just need to start up companies like Google and this Katasi that can do it all right in the open.
Errrr.... wait....
Because, ya, lots of people do that too.
No manufacturer wants to sell in small lots. If I called up Intel directly and said I want a hundred of anything, their salesman would laugh at me too. That's what distributors are for. They buy in volume and sell to the little people. Or other board makers that bought more than they need and want to unload some. Looking at Alibaba.com right now I can see more than one, likely in the latter category. Available in any quantity Hardkernel would likely want to buy, and at a price point that should make the boards doable at their current selling price.
I have a hard time believing that their discontinuing the board is linked in any way to Broadcom's refusal to sell to them directly. I would be more inclined to believe they didn't get the interest they thought they would, and that the RPI community's antipathy towards them has given them cold feet.
Windows 8 in two words: Microsoft Bob.
A radar activated light... so that the driver of a car knows that the cyclist knows that the car is getting closer to the cyclist? Huh? How about just a light that blinks really fast to begin with, and a rearview mirror on the bike so the cyclist can see the car, rather than depend on LEDs to tell him there's a car behind him. Total savings, several thousand dollars and the heartbreak of putting your heart and soul into a project that will never go anywhere.
If the inventor was bound and determined to go high tech, then how about handlebar a mounted smart phone with a rear-facing bluetooth camera. Putting together some image processing software that recognizes something approaching from the rear and notifies the cyclist with a flash or a tone would be a lot easier than building a radar, and you get the added bonus of having the rearview camera image on the smartphone display too.
Either way you are using off-the-shelf hardware. As it stands, at the frequency he's working at, in any kind of weather that diminishes visibility to the point where you'd want to have it, it would be useless. 24GHz will give you returns off of humid portions of air, let alone actual smog, fog, or mist, and doppler isn't the be-all-end-all in an environment where air currents and gusts can move the stuff you're getting returns off of at the speed of a car.
I hope those venture capitalists haven't put real money into this.
What if you could have a shell you had to sit out and plan a custom UI for? What if you had a shell that took one of your most excellently trained typing hands away from the keyboard every command or two to make you do stuff with the mouse. What if you had to pay kickstarter money to get this shell rather than stick with existing open source tools?
++notinterested. I'm not even sure why I'm taking the time t
Sure, local dealerships can fight over the scraps over who will take the lowest cut. And the manufacturer, who sets the "cost" price that the dealerships pay, is who laughs all the way to the bank. So while dickering on a price isn't possible with Tesla, it's also not possible with the existing dealership model. You can't go to ten dealerships and tell them, ok, which of you is going to more aggressively call up Ford and get me a better price from them?
So yes, you can negotiate for a dealership that adds less markup on top of what they pay, why introduce that layer at all anyway?
Most everyone is aware of the ESR. This is just a bandaid over the real problem. Chrome was designed from the very beginning with a rapid release schedule in mind. Release numbers in Chrome are essentially meaningless. Firefox adopted the same rapid release schedule as Chrome in a project that wasn't designed for it either technically or from a project management or project cultural perspective. Firefox gave addon developers the finger as they constantly broke extensions and themes. They carelessly spent valuable resources trying to make Firefox extensions less reliant on versions numbers, which only more badly broke legacy extensions, and rather than using resources to actually help extension authors, they wasted them on semi-automatic systems to catch non-compliant extensions and disable them. Which left users high and dry when they were forced to upgrade (lest they get left behind on security fixes) and lose functionality. More and more UI changes were forced on users, despite in some cases, clear majority opposition. Mozilla has consistently adopted a "we know best" attitude when it comes to what users want. And it shows, with marketshare stagnant. Google is still a major funder of Mozilla, and it's easy to see they think it money well invested. They make Chrome and then pay Mozilla to implode trying to slavishly copy their success.
Who wants to go to an ESR that is a bandaid on a bad system? You just place yourself in the eye of the storm for a short time.
No project can emulate another project and outcompete it. ESR's are not the answer. I personally have moved to PaleMoon. It too is based on a Firefox ESR, but at least they are committed to sane development and user-based UI decisions.
Indeterminate in the extreme?
Why elliptic curves when we can go back to good old fashioned original RSA that uses prime number factoring as the problem? No patent nonsense to worry about there.
All we know for sure is that a woman is claiming a man violently attempted to rape her, and the man is apparently denying any such thing happened. As far as the other 99.99999% of the world is concerned, either side could be telling the truth. We have no way to know. We have no appropriate way to find out, unless people are advocating a Boston Marathon type witch hunt. And given what happened there, I am surprised and disappointed that Slashdot posted this.
Shame on Slashdot, and shame on anyone else who engages in the actual debate. Each side may be making public posts about what happened, but that does not make it our responsibility to indulge them in the wrong way to approach this. All this can do is serve to muddy the water to make it harder for any sort of proper official investigation.
So my first reaction was like most people, wondering what caused the staccato marks spread. But then I started asking, hey, isn't this stolen data? Sure the security sucked, but what efforts did he take to correct the problem or bring it to the proper attention before he announced to the entire whole world how anyone could steal personal information on hundreds of thousands of students? With detailed instructions.
This is at best unethical. Hopefully it's illegal in his jurisdiction.
The results look to me like some sort of scaling. In fact, if you load up Gimp, take a photo and go into levels and compress the input levels, when you go back and look at the levels again the graph will look almost identical to what these marks graphs look like. It looks to me like the marks spread is being expanded and the algorithm isn't smooth.
First of all I will concede that yes, you are right that weight is properly measured in newtons. I used the common reference of weight most people think of. However it seems I need to explain a little bit about inertia. I'll try to use small words so even NASA engineers can understand:
Curiosity wheel encounters rock. Wheel exerts force to lift itself over rock. To do this, wheel must lift all of Curiosity. Curiosity masses 900kg. Object at rest tends to stay at rest. Curiosity tends to stay at rest. Curiosity wheel has much inertia to overcome to make Curiosity start moving up and then over rock.
NASA test robot masses 342kg. Test robot wheel encounters rock. Test robot exerts force to lift itself over rock. Test robot has much less inertia to overcome to make test robot start moving up and then over rock. Test robot has few dings. NASA engineers cheer.
From the article:
This sounds an idea from the same people that brought us the Mars Climate Orbiter crater.
The problem with this is that Curiosity weighs 342kg but masses 900kg. Scarecrow weighs and masses 342kg. Whatever Curiosity weighs, it hitting a rock at 1m/s is still 900 newtons of force. Scarecrow hitting a rock at 1m/s is 342 newtons. The fact it drove 12km and has serviceable wheels does not make me feel better.
I wish I knew what specific optimizations give MSVC its performance gains. What I do know is that it''s not trivial. For encryption and compression libraries, MSVC compiled libraries give me a 20% speed gain over GCC. I really want to supply my projects built with a completely open-source tool chain, but I can't justify taking that kind of performance hit for that.
I suspect MSVC produces better performing code less because of any one particular optimization and more because it is way more tightly coupled with the x86/AMD64 architecture. Most open-source compilers are three stage. Front end (language), a (generic) optimizer, and the back-end machine code emitter. The front end and optimizer stages don't know what sort of code will be emitted, so they can't make any assumptions. Does a particular construct cause cache misses? Does it invoke Intel's replay system? They don't know or care. It's only the emitter at the very last stage that is processor-aware, and by then there is only so much you can do. MSVC, on the other hand, is processor-aware from stem to stern. It can make CPU-specific assumptions at a very early stage and can take far greater advantage of SIMD instructions.
Compilers were much better when each one was for one architecture only. When they didn't mess around with intermediary bytecode, and were intended to one thing only - take language X and turn it into machine code Y.
I'm not so concerned about C++11, or compiling speed - which is what most people tout about LLLVM as its big feature. I'm concerned about the quality of the binaries produced. LLVM produces generally inferior code to GCC, which itself is already quite inferior to MSVC. I just wish there was an open source compiler where binary performance was a primary concern, not an afterthought.
Ya, but the thing is, I'd actually expect something like this from Linus. He really doesn't give much of a wet snap about software freedom - the GPL was a choice he made based on convenience (there's a pre-made license over there, and ooooh.... look how shiny and legal it looks). To make something like this actually funny, it should have been someone like Bruce Perens or Richard Stallman.
And as a follow-up, from the article...
"MariaDB can only evolve if there are companies that are prepared to either do the development of MariaDB or fund it ... The MariaDB Foundation is ... actively seeking sponsors" Widenius says.
Wow... Monty is not only taking MySQL back from the company who got it after he sold it, but after getting a billion for it he's now looking for other people to foot the bill.
The only thing Oracle is doing wrong is thinking that no one could be bold enough to try and sell the same product twice.
It's a gutsy move. It really is. Sell MySQL to Sun. Claim Sun's purchaser is doing __________ (fill in the blank with whatever evil nasty thing you like) with it. But that's ok, MariaDB will save you from that. Distributions flood to it to get away from the nasty big evil corporation, and suddenly Monty has legally taken back control of what he sold for a cool billion dollars.
The best part about it, is if Oracle says anything about it, then it just looks like they are trying to trash talk the little guy who is just trying to do the right thing for
the community.
And before you think of flaming the idea, remember, Monty is very much the businessman. He almost invented using the GPL as a weapon. He stopped releasing any connector or client licensed as LGPL so he could claim that even using MySQL as a back-end for something else required the entire front-end to be GPLed too - either that or pay him for a commercial license.
The next company to buy something from Monty better get an iron clad agreement never to fork it.
It's simply an equalizer preset that boosts the bass and high end a little.
Funny thing. On the HTC One V phone, a little Beats Audio icon would show up in the status bar when you plugged in headphones. Originally, when you'd drag down your notifications and select Beats Audio, you'd get a dialog where you could select from about 10 different equalizer presets, only one of which was the "Beats Audio" setting. The rest were the typical equalizer presets. Rock, Pop, Bass Boost, Classical, etc. When the first update came out for the, that dialog was replaced with a simple "Enable/Disable" for Beats Audio. I guess they didn't want people realizing this much vaunted "Beats Audio" was just another equalizer preset.
Normally something like this would be the other way around, with the handset or laptop manufacturers licensing some Dolby sound labeling. In this case, the HTC update having deleted all the other equalizer preset settings leads me to suspect that this is a Beats marketing strategy. I'm guessing Beats is going to the handset manufacturers and paying them to advertise "Beats Audio" on their handsets in order to boost name recognition and give them street cred in the audio market. And when HTC dumped Beats Audio in with a bunch of other equalizer presets, I suspect Beats wasn't too happy about that, which caused the change.
I think it's safe to say that most people who have been in the scene from the beginning think the "correct" SI definition of kilo can also fuck off when it comes to computers. As can kebi, mebi and friends. It had been accepted from the beginning that "kilo" meant something just a little different when it came to describing bytes. I accepted that. Everyone accepted that. There was no problem. Even in academic circles, there were no issues.
The problem came with the storage industry and their pious "oh, but that's not what SI says the units mean". If you think that conforming to strict SI is the reason they made their change, then I'd suggest you not accept kool-aid from strangers. Ever. It was marketing greed, nothing more
However, while I think kebi, mebi and friends can fall down a deep dark hole, I actually don't mind using their unit symbols. At least in that way there is no misunderstanding in writing what is meant, and the trickle down effect from intellectual papers where it's vital that it's specified what value is means to more lay writings can occur without changing the unit symbols. But I do not now, nor will I ever, read 500MiB as "five hundred mebibytes".
This would be like Microsoft asking OpenOffice not to import Word format. Or, for a closer analogy, for them to ask Mozilla not to have Firefox import IE bookmarks when you install it. This type of thing is done all the time. Unless they claim to have a patent on the format in the .ini file, it's totally fair game.
No. This isn't because Linus can't fire him. This wasn't Linus carefully picking his words to get his point across. This was an out of control rant and his explanations about that being his style are ones I do not accept as valid. They seem to be nothing more than excuses for a criminal lack of self discipline.
Mr. Chehab is either competent and made a mistake, or he is not competent and this is chronic. In the latter case, I can understand frustration, but this is exactly what self discipline is for. Because even if it was total incompetence, anger is not ever a valid response to incompetency. I bolded that because it's important. It's never appropriate in response to incompetence. Never. Not by anybody. Regardless of your self-professed management style. Regardless of the stakes. It is a failure of one's personal self discipline, and it is always... always self defeating.
Anger is a proper response in the face of willfulness or maliciousness. And looking at the thread, and in reading quite a number of other threads involving Mr. Chehab, it is clear that he was being neither willful nor malicious. Anger is part of the "fight or flight". It's an adjunct to combat, and the words Linus used were clearly combative. Combat is a response to combat - otherwise you are being an aggressor. In other words, Linus was being nothing more than a schoolyard bully picking on someone for no better reason than he could. It's that simple.
You can be stern, uncompromising, and even lay out consequences for ongoing failure without the anger and get the point across just as well. Here is how Linus' letter should have read:
I didn't say you get to use violence as a remedy, I'm saying that the reality is that people were using violence as a remedy and that Youtube did the correct thing. It's fine for some airy-fairy rights-obsessed intellectual in the EFF to say that all censorship is wrong, but there were real people with real guns at peoples heads. Which innocent are you willing to sacrifice for the ideal of never taking a video off of Youtube? A video made with the intention to inflame hatred.
I'll tell you what, hero... you want to stand up for rights? Get a nice big tablet, hang it off your chest, and put that video on it while walking around in Libya. I will seriously pay for the tablet and the plane ticket to Libya. You and I both know I will only be out for a one-way ticket.
If YOU want to make a point about censorship.... then YOU go make your point. Put your own life on the line. Youtube execs acted in good faith to save lives in a terrible situation. They decided they weren't going to play with other people's lives. And good for them!