Of course, there is nothing like Amarok (2, yes, I'm a fan)
For media playback, I recommend you try mpd, of course that is just the daemon, there are many front-ends for it and I imagine a qt one (I use ncurses one and the firefox plugin when people are over)
Amarok doesn't play well with jack, which is what all the cool kids that want serious low latency audio use for that audio subsystems many neat features.
For crying out loud, look at the goddamn KDE 4.7 beta 1 screenshots in the article! LOOK AT HOW MUCH WASTED SPACE THERE IS! In the screenshot of Dolphin, look at how shitting massive the icons are! If they were half the size, you could get twice as many shown at once, and still be able to see the thumbnail image just fine.
Everyone that has been using kde since the pre-dolphin era uses konqueror for their local file storage browsing, dolphin is horrendous in comparison.
Those of us that use kde day to day likely don't encounter most of the suckier new items, simply because we keep on doing it the older way. (most useful aspect of konqueror imho, browsing sftp like it were local and copy/pasting etc like normal)
56 years is far too shifted in favour of the media companies.
Remember the purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," when it is 15 years when someone turns 30 they can create a lovely remix of an old song they heard when they were 15 suited to a newer audience. 56 years means I can create derivative works from my youth on my death bed. This is far too long.
So when you "see no issue" with proposing a law that releases works faster than even the 28 year period, you are implicitly declaring a fight with those dead dinos and their profits.
Yes, but this is the only way to effectively shift copyright back to promoting the useful arts. In it's present state the large media companies hold all the cards and effectively limit peoples creativity with their own culture. This is what needs to change, the only way it can change is to fight them. Every individual that realizes this and is willing to do a small part contributes.
Phrasings like that are a bit polemic, because for certain titles, it the chops off crispy profits "just because you said so". Disney is of course the famous case, and Star Trek and Dr. Who might be the poster cases right behind them for longevity. On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
I see no issue with the original series of star trek going out of copyright, same with all the movies up till '96. The new star trek movie would of course still have another decade left of copyright and so profits can still be sought for it. The copyrights would be 15 years from publication so everything new still has 15 years to make a profit.
On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
Yes, lets tax what has by this time become part of our culture, all hail the culture tax overlords.:P People should be compensated if people like their work, and if people do like their work, there is a pretty damn high likelihood they can make some money off it in 15 years. It is better for all of us if our culture in general is not limited by eternal gatekeepers always making us pay again and again.
The other clause that would be useful is a "retainer" on certain "grandfather" titles like said Disney and Star Trek and Dr. Who paid by the companies every year to keep the big properties intact
There is no need for this trademark law would ensure only the original companies could come out with things of the same name so long as said companies remain in business. Copyright would allow 15 years for new works to make a profit, and then everyone can copy at their leisure after that. Mickey mouse can live even if copyright were shorter, but if it were shorter we could legally copy steamboat willy. yes we could make derivative works but trademark law would mean we would have to rename things somewhat.
the BSD tells you want you can't do (which isn't much).
It's still a restriction, and so therefore, not 'free' if we are going to be pedantic like you want to be.
Complete freedom (public domain and lesser extent bsd) gives the ability to cut off freedom from others.
The gpl is seen as the greater benefit for everyone, allowing all to be free to do what they wish with the code except deny the same freedom to others.
That you cannot deny the freedom to tinker from others is itself a restriction yes, but ensures those you distribute to to also do whatever else they like besides that.
The only developers that it is a problem for are those that wish to be leeches and not share back, and I imagine most lgpl projects are glad that commercial projects can be created from their libraries. With any fixes or new features returned for all who use the library to enjoy, instead of being locked out.
Basically, do you want to give people freedom to do anything include lock users in, or do you want to give them freedom for everything _except_ that?
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
If we go black and white with your logic anything at all besides public domain isn't 'free' which is why I said go ahead and put things in the public domain.
Sure, people might make some awesome things from it that has functionality that you would like, but oh look they kept it all proprietary and you now have to pay for what is mostly your own code, too bad. This is why people choose to restrict the freedom to restrict others freedom to an extent, quid pro quo and all that.
If copyright were a reasonable length (say.. 15 years) this would not be an issue.
So linux 2.0 goes into the public domain, all the better for society yeah? People are completely free to make derivative works, and 2.0 is rather useless by todays standards. Whereas more recent works like 2.6 are still protected.
Windows 95 is then also public domain, especially useful if someone has the source code locked away somewhere (which would also expire from copyright) so it could be released to further the reverse engineering efforts of wine.
Meanwhile, all the music from the 80's is now free to be remixed and new creative works made.
I don't see the downside, 15 years is more than enough to make back money on your investment.
How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.
Then put your work in the public domain. After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.
The gpl and lgpl are there to protect the freedom of users. In doing so they restrict the freedom of distributors. You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.
CDMA sacrifices a lot of speed to get the multiple signals that it does, instead of transmitting a zero and one you are transmitting a whole code to transmit a zero or one.
It still does not beat shannons law, the amount of data you put through a cable is still a function of it's noise and the bandwidth. When purpose built utp can't get over 10m easily with 40gbit of throughput you understand why I'm hesitant to think that a single crappy coax line can do it over the distance of a few miles (even with amplifiers placed about). I understand newer equipment with better filtering etc etc can improve things, but I figure there is a reason we went to utp over coax and fibre over utp. I'd love to be able to pump out 40gbit over a long coax line one day, but I can't imagine it really doing it at the present time.
I sometimes wonder why US companies outsource labour to china, when some jobs in the US have minimum wages as low as $4/hour. Most sane countries are at least triple that so people can you know.. eat and live.
When it comes to latency practically every single provider in this country does adsl. and a straight ping from my house to my friends house 150 miles away yields an average latency of 35msec (through a couple hops) , adsl does not give inherently give such extremely high latency. I have no idea what is wrong with your mothers connection but having tended several hundred adsl connections her latency is utter shit.
According to Cisco's SCDMA DOCSIS 3.0 documentation, you can have 128 40mbit logical channels in a single 40mbit physical channel.
This seems to me like partitioning up available speed on a device, it would be akin to having a pc with 4gb of ram having 128 virtual machines with 4gb of ram each... fine... until they try to use it. You do not multiply by 'logical' partitions of physical capacity by physical capacity, only physical capacity matters logical partitions are for management of it.
A single physical coax cable can only output about 343mbit (with 8 channels being used) under docsis3 so unless you are saying there is a separate physical cable for more than every dozen houses or so I fail to see how it is better.
we'll assume single cable has say, 40 houses, pretty small when you think about it. with 8 channels and 343mbit total this gives approx 8mbit dedicated per person. Now of course there is a fair chance that some people aren't presently maxing the connection, so this bandwidth can be used by others to get your 40mbit.
When you use the 320mbit 'boost' feature, you are using the entire internet access of all your neighbours for a tiny period. That kind of shit is nasty.
I don't like contention on the line. Especially not at those rates where only having a dozen people down your street torrent slow down the internet for everyone. At least with larger numbers there is more likely to be enough left over to always supply the demand from what is not in use on the uplink so long as each line is dedicated like it is with adsl. Even when oversubscribing themselves on the link.
I would take DOCSIS 3.0 SCDMA 8 channel over 1000 channels of 24mbit DSL anyday.
really? So you would take 343mbit shared among everyone on a link as opposed to 1000 24mbit dedicated links to the exchange with an uplink set depending on the needs of the exchange?
Out of curiosity, what made you unable to switch to the other window managers? by most accounts kde is very accessible (in both kde and gnome I mainly use alt-f2 to load things so it makes no difference).
Just seems odd to switch a whole distro because one desktop manager changed.
I know this can be blocked, but it is a lot easier to have my private little world which just doesnt work outside of its sandbox, and then set up NATs to the rest of the world to the specific machines that need to be exposed. This is the easiest explicit deny unless implicitly allowed rule ever.
Sane new ipv6 routers firewalls can do connection tracking and disallow incoming connections while allowing outgoing and related,established just fine.
You can have your nat 'nothing accessible except what you want' convenience only you can expose more services if you wish and have more addresses:)
As I understand it, DSL is just as shared as cable, just at a different point.
And that different point makes all the difference, since it is far easier for telecoms to get faster connection cables to their exchanges, so the limiting factor becomes the individual persons dsl lines speed. I'd rather have 1000 dedicated 24mbit links to a telecom switch with a single 10gbit upstream link than a dozen sharing the same 40mbit coax.
With a wide screen, you see less of the document at once, especially if you use "adjust to width" zoom option.
but a 16:10 22 inch screen is approximately the size of two a4 sheets next to each other, so you can put two documents side by side and work on them.
Widescreen makes sense because our field of vision tends to be wider than it is tall. Yes if you put your screen vertically there will be more area for a single document that way, however instead of scrolling with your mouse now you'll be scrolling with your eyes since you can't see it all assuming you make the screen large enough for the width to still encompass most of your field of vision
Now that it has started to get traction both Google and the carriers will want more control, and since they have been very careful not to touch ANYTHING GPL V3 with regards to Android the next move will be eFuses or code signing. They'll do it "for security" and probably announce it right after some piece of Android malware has hit, but the results will be the same. Just like TiVo you'll have the code but not be able to do a damned thing with it.
The carriers have always wanted control, this is not new. Googles entire point of making android was for there to be an open platform for which it could display ads. Being closed lessens the number of people interested, it's main product is eyes so whatever gives it the most eyes is what it will do, being open is a part of this. That said, the carriers have sway over the phone manufacturers, so it would not surprise me in the least if the carriers locked things down a bit more. But google really has no business case for locking it down, it goes against it's own interests.
They will jump in bed with the *.A.As, the carriers, and of course making it so every search has to go through Google will just be a nice bonus.
Even if google secretly wanted to limit it only to google search, it would never. The department of justice would come down on them so fast it would make their head spin. So with that out of the picture what incentive does google have to ally themselves with the *.A.As or carriers? Considering google is the very company trying to undermine those other interests monopolies on their respective things so that ads can be shared more freely.
Don't forget how they said Android was "open" and then said it was open "for the carriers" not the end users. These are just the feelers, seeing how much backlash they are gonna get. mark my words, before Xmas you'll see the end of Android being open.
Even if carriers start locking down phones that would not mean android itself would not be open. The individual devices may be locked down, but the platform will still be open. The more devices that are locked down the more incentive other carriers have to offer a phone that is not to seize that small portion that want it. Yes it is a small portion, but when considering the effort required to acquire it (none, just leave the thing open) someone will want to take it (corporate greed and all that).
The sky is not falling, thanks to google we do now have an open platform. Yes this platform is at risk from those that would try to subvert it in the chain, but overall getting everyone to adopt completely locked down devices after being used to the open droid will be a hard sell for some.
Why should different rules apply to Apple and Samsung for instance?
Perhaps because samsung was one of the companies that helped create the standard? RAND was for companies involved in the creation of the bugger. Coming late to the game with nothing to give (or refusing to give) creates a different situation and therefore a different outcome.
It makes sense that those who help make it get better terms.
The problem with that is people do buy in excess. Word processing and typesetting can still be effectively done on a 486 or other embedded class device and yet even purpose defined machines are typically some ghz behemoth monster. Why? for future uses. You don't buy a top of the line machine in order to keep up with the neighbours, you buy it for extra growing room for any capacity you may require that is not presently known.
While it is true usb3 exceeds capacity and will likely be useful for quite some time, at present implementations of it are cpu bound so thunderbolt is not only faster, but you can actually utilize that speed, with todays hardware. Should your needs change faster than cpus can adapt, it will prove useful.
For things like mouse/keyboard/other low end device usb will always win, but thunderbolt serves different needs, similar ones to what firewire serves just at a much higher rate. These needs do exist and people will pay for it if they require it. Only the people who see no utility in fast low latency transfers would not be interested and while there are quite a few I doubt there would be enough to doom the new connector, especially if it replaces hdmi and dvi as the dominant video connector on intel motherboards (since intel is pushing it).
Wrong. It's about value. If USB3 provides 75% of the value of LightPeak at 50% of the cost, that's a economic win.
Value assumes it has qualities fit for purposes, you have not defined what you consider fit for purpose for this use and so that argument on it's face means nothing. To some light peak could be utterly useless because of the reliance on the cpu and timing issues and so even at half the price it is like paying for a motorcycle wheel as opposed to the appropriate car one.
I see lights peak being used for purposes where usb3 would utterly, utterly fail
So from an management/engineering standpoint, I see your logic. But in a real-world application, that is not the case. We do not and arguably should not design products for "worst case scenario" applications. They should target just a little higher than average use applications.
When it comes to items out of your control, I see your point. For instance I would not blame the consoles overheating if they have their ventilation covered, or were operating in ambient temperatures of over 45 degrees.
You build things to a specification, when going out of this specification things fail, so the spec should entail 99.9% of typical operating requirements.
Games will and do use cpu and gpus to 100% usage. Consoles should be able to handle this. Is this handling a 'worst case scenario' when it comes to heating? of course not, because someone could try using their xbox in an oven or some such. But this means that in typical usage up to a point these consoles should not simply die.
Last I checked consoles were designed for long periods of continuous usage within normal household range temperatures, with games placing load on the systems.
If they fail under any variant of these conditions, the engineers designing the consoles have failed.
But the Patriot Act doesn't violate the constitution.
You almost sound like the people who support free speech zones because they don't 'violate' the constitution by limiting speech, only the time/place/manner of the speech.
Because people have families and they aren't bothered by the government snooping at their traffic.
Speak for yourself, I think teaching your children that sacrificing freedoms for perceived safety is completely worthless is a valuable lesson that should be shown more often. And that you as a parent should be able to actively support your ideas and be strong in your convictions and arguments as to why they are meaningful. This is just being a good role model.
music player
movies
flashplayer stuff on the net
occasional editing of audio in Audacity
Skype
i use jack for all of those things except skype, since I avoid skype like the plague. but everything else I can confirm working and working nicely.
Anything that tries to use alsa directly will also integrate with jack because of the jack alsa sink (this is how I have audio from flashplayer with the other things), I just redirected the default alsa device to a jack one in asound.conf (you basically just copy paste it from the one on the jack website) Your mileage may vary though as I have found one or two programs that do not like this transition layer (mainly quake4)
So low-latency doesn't really show up on my radar, other than the network latency in Skype.
Even without low latency requirements, the ability to route audio to/from different programs with complete ease is a godsend. One of those things which you never realize how handy it is until you need it, and when you don't need it you just don't have to worry about it and it's business as usual.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course, there is nothing like Amarok (2, yes, I'm a fan)
For media playback, I recommend you try mpd, of course that is just the daemon, there are many front-ends for it and I imagine a qt one (I use ncurses one and the firefox plugin when people are over)
Amarok doesn't play well with jack, which is what all the cool kids that want serious low latency audio use for that audio subsystems many neat features.
For crying out loud, look at the goddamn KDE 4.7 beta 1 screenshots in the article! LOOK AT HOW MUCH WASTED SPACE THERE IS! In the screenshot of Dolphin, look at how shitting massive the icons are! If they were half the size, you could get twice as many shown at once, and still be able to see the thumbnail image just fine.
Everyone that has been using kde since the pre-dolphin era uses konqueror for their local file storage browsing, dolphin is horrendous in comparison.
Those of us that use kde day to day likely don't encounter most of the suckier new items, simply because we keep on doing it the older way. (most useful aspect of konqueror imho, browsing sftp like it were local and copy/pasting etc like normal)
By connecting to it over ipv6 with an autoconfigured ipv6 address. it uses your MAC address for the host portion.
56 years is far too shifted in favour of the media companies.
Remember the purpose of copyright is to "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts," when it is 15 years when someone turns 30 they can create a lovely remix of an old song they heard when they were 15 suited to a newer audience. 56 years means I can create derivative works from my youth on my death bed. This is far too long.
So when you "see no issue" with proposing a law that releases works faster than even the 28 year period, you are implicitly declaring a fight with those dead dinos and their profits.
Yes, but this is the only way to effectively shift copyright back to promoting the useful arts. In it's present state the large media companies hold all the cards and effectively limit peoples creativity with their own culture. This is what needs to change, the only way it can change is to fight them. Every individual that realizes this and is willing to do a small part contributes.
Phrasings like that are a bit polemic, because for certain titles, it the chops off crispy profits "just because you said so". Disney is of course the famous case, and Star Trek and Dr. Who might be the poster cases right behind them for longevity. On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
I see no issue with the original series of star trek going out of copyright, same with all the movies up till '96. The new star trek movie would of course still have another decade left of copyright and so profits can still be sought for it. The copyrights would be 15 years from publication so everything new still has 15 years to make a profit.
On the music side, RIAA has been getting nice sales for 40 years on tons of titles.
Yes, lets tax what has by this time become part of our culture, all hail the culture tax overlords. :P People should be compensated if people like their work, and if people do like their work, there is a pretty damn high likelihood they can make some money off it in 15 years. It is better for all of us if our culture in general is not limited by eternal gatekeepers always making us pay again and again.
The other clause that would be useful is a "retainer" on certain "grandfather" titles like said Disney and Star Trek and Dr. Who paid by the companies every year to keep the big properties intact
There is no need for this trademark law would ensure only the original companies could come out with things of the same name so long as said companies remain in business. Copyright would allow 15 years for new works to make a profit, and then everyone can copy at their leisure after that. Mickey mouse can live even if copyright were shorter, but if it were shorter we could legally copy steamboat willy. yes we could make derivative works but trademark law would mean we would have to rename things somewhat.
the BSD tells you want you can't do (which isn't much).
It's still a restriction, and so therefore, not 'free' if we are going to be pedantic like you want to be.
Complete freedom (public domain and lesser extent bsd) gives the ability to cut off freedom from others.
The gpl is seen as the greater benefit for everyone, allowing all to be free to do what they wish with the code except deny the same freedom to others.
That you cannot deny the freedom to tinker from others is itself a restriction yes, but ensures those you distribute to to also do whatever else they like besides that.
The only developers that it is a problem for are those that wish to be leeches and not share back, and I imagine most lgpl projects are glad that commercial projects can be created from their libraries. With any fixes or new features returned for all who use the library to enjoy, instead of being locked out.
Basically, do you want to give people freedom to do anything include lock users in, or do you want to give them freedom for everything _except_ that?
You can try to redefine free all you want. If one party loses rights at the expense of the other, calling it "free" is disingenuous at best.
If we go black and white with your logic anything at all besides public domain isn't 'free' which is why I said go ahead and put things in the public domain.
Sure, people might make some awesome things from it that has functionality that you would like, but oh look they kept it all proprietary and you now have to pay for what is mostly your own code, too bad. This is why people choose to restrict the freedom to restrict others freedom to an extent, quid pro quo and all that.
If copyright were a reasonable length (say.. 15 years) this would not be an issue.
So linux 2.0 goes into the public domain, all the better for society yeah? People are completely free to make derivative works, and 2.0 is rather useless by todays standards. Whereas more recent works like 2.6 are still protected.
Windows 95 is then also public domain, especially useful if someone has the source code locked away somewhere (which would also expire from copyright) so it could be released to further the reverse engineering efforts of wine.
Meanwhile, all the music from the 80's is now free to be remixed and new creative works made.
I don't see the downside, 15 years is more than enough to make back money on your investment.
How is this a problem? It seems hard to justify calling something Free software if people can't even use in the way that they want.
Then put your work in the public domain. After all the clauses in the bsd license still limit your 'freedom' in this sense.
The gpl and lgpl are there to protect the freedom of users. In doing so they restrict the freedom of distributors. You can 'use' gpl software in any which way you want, but you cannot distribute the software which violates the license.
CDMA sacrifices a lot of speed to get the multiple signals that it does, instead of transmitting a zero and one you are transmitting a whole code to transmit a zero or one.
It still does not beat shannons law, the amount of data you put through a cable is still a function of it's noise and the bandwidth. When purpose built utp can't get over 10m easily with 40gbit of throughput you understand why I'm hesitant to think that a single crappy coax line can do it over the distance of a few miles (even with amplifiers placed about). I understand newer equipment with better filtering etc etc can improve things, but I figure there is a reason we went to utp over coax and fibre over utp. I'd love to be able to pump out 40gbit over a long coax line one day, but I can't imagine it really doing it at the present time.
I sometimes wonder why US companies outsource labour to china, when some jobs in the US have minimum wages as low as $4/hour. Most sane countries are at least triple that so people can you know.. eat and live.
When it comes to latency practically every single provider in this country does adsl. and a straight ping from my house to my friends house 150 miles away yields an average latency of 35msec (through a couple hops) , adsl does not give inherently give such extremely high latency. I have no idea what is wrong with your mothers connection but having tended several hundred adsl connections her latency is utter shit.
According to Cisco's SCDMA DOCSIS 3.0 documentation, you can have 128 40mbit logical channels in a single 40mbit physical channel.
This seems to me like partitioning up available speed on a device, it would be akin to having a pc with 4gb of ram having 128 virtual machines with 4gb of ram each... fine... until they try to use it. You do not multiply by 'logical' partitions of physical capacity by physical capacity, only physical capacity matters logical partitions are for management of it.
A single physical coax cable can only output about 343mbit (with 8 channels being used) under docsis3 so unless you are saying there is a separate physical cable for more than every dozen houses or so I fail to see how it is better.
we'll assume single cable has say, 40 houses, pretty small when you think about it. with 8 channels and 343mbit total this gives approx 8mbit dedicated per person. Now of course there is a fair chance that some people aren't presently maxing the connection, so this bandwidth can be used by others to get your 40mbit.
When you use the 320mbit 'boost' feature, you are using the entire internet access of all your neighbours for a tiny period. That kind of shit is nasty.
I don't like contention on the line. Especially not at those rates where only having a dozen people down your street torrent slow down the internet for everyone. At least with larger numbers there is more likely to be enough left over to always supply the demand from what is not in use on the uplink so long as each line is dedicated like it is with adsl. Even when oversubscribing themselves on the link.
I would take DOCSIS 3.0 SCDMA 8 channel over 1000 channels of 24mbit DSL anyday.
really? So you would take 343mbit shared among everyone on a link as opposed to 1000 24mbit dedicated links to the exchange with an uplink set depending on the needs of the exchange?
Out of curiosity, what made you unable to switch to the other window managers? by most accounts kde is very accessible (in both kde and gnome I mainly use alt-f2 to load things so it makes no difference).
Just seems odd to switch a whole distro because one desktop manager changed.
I know this can be blocked, but it is a lot easier to have my private little world which just doesnt work outside of its sandbox, and then set up NATs to the rest of the world to the specific machines that need to be exposed. This is the easiest explicit deny unless implicitly allowed rule ever.
Sane new ipv6 routers firewalls can do connection tracking and disallow incoming connections while allowing outgoing and related,established just fine.
You can have your nat 'nothing accessible except what you want' convenience only you can expose more services if you wish and have more addresses :)
As I understand it, DSL is just as shared as cable, just at a different point.
And that different point makes all the difference, since it is far easier for telecoms to get faster connection cables to their exchanges, so the limiting factor becomes the individual persons dsl lines speed. I'd rather have 1000 dedicated 24mbit links to a telecom switch with a single 10gbit upstream link than a dozen sharing the same 40mbit coax.
With a wide screen, you see less of the document at once, especially if you use "adjust to width" zoom option.
but a 16:10 22 inch screen is approximately the size of two a4 sheets next to each other, so you can put two documents side by side and work on them.
Widescreen makes sense because our field of vision tends to be wider than it is tall. Yes if you put your screen vertically there will be more area for a single document that way, however instead of scrolling with your mouse now you'll be scrolling with your eyes since you can't see it all assuming you make the screen large enough for the width to still encompass most of your field of vision
Now that it has started to get traction both Google and the carriers will want more control, and since they have been very careful not to touch ANYTHING GPL V3 with regards to Android the next move will be eFuses or code signing. They'll do it "for security" and probably announce it right after some piece of Android malware has hit, but the results will be the same. Just like TiVo you'll have the code but not be able to do a damned thing with it.
The carriers have always wanted control, this is not new. Googles entire point of making android was for there to be an open platform for which it could display ads. Being closed lessens the number of people interested, it's main product is eyes so whatever gives it the most eyes is what it will do, being open is a part of this. That said, the carriers have sway over the phone manufacturers, so it would not surprise me in the least if the carriers locked things down a bit more. But google really has no business case for locking it down, it goes against it's own interests.
They will jump in bed with the *.A.As, the carriers, and of course making it so every search has to go through Google will just be a nice bonus.
Even if google secretly wanted to limit it only to google search, it would never. The department of justice would come down on them so fast it would make their head spin. So with that out of the picture what incentive does google have to ally themselves with the *.A.As or carriers? Considering google is the very company trying to undermine those other interests monopolies on their respective things so that ads can be shared more freely.
Don't forget how they said Android was "open" and then said it was open "for the carriers" not the end users. These are just the feelers, seeing how much backlash they are gonna get. mark my words, before Xmas you'll see the end of Android being open.
Even if carriers start locking down phones that would not mean android itself would not be open. The individual devices may be locked down, but the platform will still be open. The more devices that are locked down the more incentive other carriers have to offer a phone that is not to seize that small portion that want it. Yes it is a small portion, but when considering the effort required to acquire it (none, just leave the thing open) someone will want to take it (corporate greed and all that).
The sky is not falling, thanks to google we do now have an open platform. Yes this platform is at risk from those that would try to subvert it in the chain, but overall getting everyone to adopt completely locked down devices after being used to the open droid will be a hard sell for some.
Why should different rules apply to Apple and Samsung for instance?
Perhaps because samsung was one of the companies that helped create the standard? RAND was for companies involved in the creation of the bugger. Coming late to the game with nothing to give (or refusing to give) creates a different situation and therefore a different outcome.
It makes sense that those who help make it get better terms.
The problem with that is people do buy in excess. Word processing and typesetting can still be effectively done on a 486 or other embedded class device and yet even purpose defined machines are typically some ghz behemoth monster. Why? for future uses. You don't buy a top of the line machine in order to keep up with the neighbours, you buy it for extra growing room for any capacity you may require that is not presently known.
While it is true usb3 exceeds capacity and will likely be useful for quite some time, at present implementations of it are cpu bound so thunderbolt is not only faster, but you can actually utilize that speed, with todays hardware. Should your needs change faster than cpus can adapt, it will prove useful.
For things like mouse/keyboard/other low end device usb will always win, but thunderbolt serves different needs, similar ones to what firewire serves just at a much higher rate. These needs do exist and people will pay for it if they require it. Only the people who see no utility in fast low latency transfers would not be interested and while there are quite a few I doubt there would be enough to doom the new connector, especially if it replaces hdmi and dvi as the dominant video connector on intel motherboards (since intel is pushing it).
Wrong. It's about value. If USB3 provides 75% of the value of LightPeak at 50% of the cost, that's a economic win.
Value assumes it has qualities fit for purposes, you have not defined what you consider fit for purpose for this use and so that argument on it's face means nothing. To some light peak could be utterly useless because of the reliance on the cpu and timing issues and so even at half the price it is like paying for a motorcycle wheel as opposed to the appropriate car one.
I see lights peak being used for purposes where usb3 would utterly, utterly fail
Is there such a thing as a bus powered Firewire drive? No?
Google more, they exist and I've been using them for some time.
Sure. Firewire is technically better in some ways but only marginally so.
What's that? no cpu usage in transfers because of DMA instead of using the cpu for everything? yes please
Device daisy chaining without issue? (no usb hubs do not count) and a bunch of other features
Firewire was more than just 'marginally' better. Usb might be able to do the job, but it did so and does so poorly in comparison.
I assume you mean shitty stereoscopic '3d' like what everyone preaches is 3d at the present moment...
Screw that, give me a volumetric display. Proper 3d would be an absolute dream.
Laptop input is nowhere near as fast or convenient as purpose built input pad like there are on graphic calculators.
So from an management/engineering standpoint, I see your logic. But in a real-world application, that is not the case. We do not and arguably should not design products for "worst case scenario" applications. They should target just a little higher than average use applications.
When it comes to items out of your control, I see your point. For instance I would not blame the consoles overheating if they have their ventilation covered, or were operating in ambient temperatures of over 45 degrees.
You build things to a specification, when going out of this specification things fail, so the spec should entail 99.9% of typical operating requirements.
Games will and do use cpu and gpus to 100% usage. Consoles should be able to handle this. Is this handling a 'worst case scenario' when it comes to heating? of course not, because someone could try using their xbox in an oven or some such. But this means that in typical usage up to a point these consoles should not simply die.
Last I checked consoles were designed for long periods of continuous usage within normal household range temperatures, with games placing load on the systems.
If they fail under any variant of these conditions, the engineers designing the consoles have failed.
But the Patriot Act doesn't violate the constitution.
You almost sound like the people who support free speech zones because they don't 'violate' the constitution by limiting speech, only the time/place/manner of the speech.
Because people have families and they aren't bothered by the government snooping at their traffic.
Speak for yourself, I think teaching your children that sacrificing freedoms for perceived safety is completely worthless is a valuable lesson that should be shown more often. And that you as a parent should be able to actively support your ideas and be strong in your convictions and arguments as to why they are meaningful. This is just being a good role model.
music player movies flashplayer stuff on the net occasional editing of audio in Audacity Skype
i use jack for all of those things except skype, since I avoid skype like the plague. but everything else I can confirm working and working nicely.
Anything that tries to use alsa directly will also integrate with jack because of the jack alsa sink (this is how I have audio from flashplayer with the other things), I just redirected the default alsa device to a jack one in asound.conf (you basically just copy paste it from the one on the jack website) Your mileage may vary though as I have found one or two programs that do not like this transition layer (mainly quake4)
So low-latency doesn't really show up on my radar, other than the network latency in Skype.
Even without low latency requirements, the ability to route audio to/from different programs with complete ease is a godsend. One of those things which you never realize how handy it is until you need it, and when you don't need it you just don't have to worry about it and it's business as usual.