I have a WAP-11 and it would freeze everytime I'd transfer at "high" speed. Upgrading the firmware solved the problem. Now about range, I've seen a Cisco WAP suck even more (15" range indoor) and somehow resetting all default (which we didn't change) made it work. Seems like all this Wi-Fi equipment is still a bit experimental...
Many enhancements over PDF, including: - Windows-only support - Enforces "Digital Restrictions Management" - Break the format at every new Office version - EULA that gives MS copyright for all your documents...but unfortunately with MS marketing it might even catch on:(
To me making forged headers illegal is almost the same as forcing "opt-in". The reason is that if you send spam without forged headers to people who don't want it, you're going to get flooded/DDoS'd so badly you'll never try again.
One thing to think about: not all open-source projects are GPL. I have two open-source projects: one is LGPL, the other is BSD. If all US gov't code were released under the GPL, I couldn't use it for my projects.
No cathedral means that the development is centralized and it applies to most of RMS is doing. I think it may also apply to proprietaty software too, since it's mostly about development process, not free/non-free issues.
The think is that if the US stopped making ennemies everywhere it can (but we don't care, we're the strongest), you could have the kind of security we have in Canada and not be bothered with terrorism. If we make controle tougher it would be only to please the US. Of course we can do a bit on our part, but we're not going to change every law here because it pleases the US and makes it more secure.
have active cooling on the north bridge I may have missed something but I was under the impression that on Hammer, the north bridge was on the CPU (not on the board).
Note that there is still some work to do for bringing Speex to wireless communications. Speex is designed to be robust to packet loss but not bit corruption. Some layer would likely be needed for that...
Concerning my approach on CELP and patents... My idea was to use "old" stuff: I'm using algorithms that are either not patented or for which the patents have expired. I've read lots of early 80's papers for that... I've kept away from "clever tricks" (e.g. ACELP) and for that reason I know Speex is sub-optimal. However, with proper tuning, I get not too far from heavily patented standards (sometimes with a bit more complexity though) such as G.729 and still much better than GSM-FR.
For the patent issue, I mean that as far as I understand, I'm (e.g.) not allowed to use in Speex a patent that's found in iLBC. That AFAIK, makes iLBC incompatible with the GPL and most open-source software. A (irrevocable) statement saying "our patents may be used freely in any open-source software", would be great and (I think) help iLBC gain ground in the open-source community.
As for quality, don't get me wrong, I find the idea behind iLBC very interesting, and BTW, the "less than" before "2-5%" got stripped while posting. Anyway, what I mean is that at low (or no) packet loss, I consider the Speex quality to be better, e.g. to my ear (which I agree may be biased becaused I'm used to hearing Speex), Speex at 11 kbps is equal (or slightly better) in quality to iLBC at 14 kbps. Of course, I expect the situation to reverse when packet loss gets in the 10-30% range. I've been told that this doesn't happen often, but I'm not a network expert.
Chips are not available for all standard codecs and there are chips available for non-standard codecs. Acceptance is what decides and it takes time. However, Speex being free of expensive patent royalties probably helps.
Well (at least in case of Speex), it's not really "more projects for the same decelopers", but "more projects with more developers". I started Speex without being associated to Xiph. Now we join Xiph and project is already beta), so we're adding to the manpower, not diluting it.
(From Speex author) The problem with iLBC is that AFAIK, it is patented. They give access to their patents as long as you're using it in iLBC. That requirement is AFAIK incompatible with the GPL and requirements of most open-source licenses. Also, the quality is good at high packet loss, but for reasonnable operation (2-5%), the Speex quality is (to my ear better). Last thing: the CELP patent is expired and I have been careful not to include things like ACELP and other patented algorithms.
One thing that Speex can do that you can't do with telephone is transmit wideband (50-7000 Hz frequency band) speech. This allows much better quality and intelligibility. Once you try it, you can't go back to narrowband. Unfortunately the current VoIP apps that use Speex are narrowband-only for now, but that may change in the future.
Probably something you've done. For normal use, it's between 5% and 30% on my PIII/1GHz, depending on the sampling rate (8kHz or 16 kHz, only mono supported) and the bit-rate. The encoder also has a "complexity" option similar to the -1 to -9 options in gzip.
(From Speex author) We're currently developing ways to integrate with standards like H323 and SIP. The idea is to make VoIP apps use Speex in a standard way so they can all communicate using Speex. It doesn't matter is Speex itself is a (ITU-T/IETF/ETSI/name it) standard.
(I am the Speex author) There are already at least two Windows front-ends: here and here. There may be others I'm not aware of. Note that I haven't developed of tested any of these since I don't use Windows.
...record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists
The artists, they think that just because they're the ones that work hard to create that music, they're entitled to some part of the profits. Shame on them! They should make their effort in order to to help the poor guys from Sony/BMG/EMI/... so they can make a living. With all these music terrorists around, it's really hard being a major label.
Slashdot Mirror
US authorities are urging people to buy more SUV's to make that happen faster and thus help the whole world reduce costs.
I have a WAP-11 and it would freeze everytime I'd transfer at "high" speed. Upgrading the firmware solved the problem. Now about range, I've seen a Cisco WAP suck even more (15" range indoor) and somehow resetting all default (which we didn't change) made it work. Seems like all this Wi-Fi equipment is still a bit experimental...
Many enhancements over PDF, including: ...but unfortunately with MS marketing it might even catch on :(
- Windows-only support
- Enforces "Digital Restrictions Management"
- Break the format at every new Office version
- EULA that gives MS copyright for all your documents
When I said DDOS attack, I just meant 10 million people sending back an e-mail... and it's even legal.
To me making forged headers illegal is almost the same as forcing "opt-in". The reason is that if you send spam without forged headers to people who don't want it, you're going to get flooded/DDoS'd so badly you'll never try again.
One thing to think about: not all open-source projects are GPL. I have two open-source projects: one is LGPL, the other is BSD. If all US gov't code were released under the GPL, I couldn't use it for my projects.
Jean-Marc
No cathedral means that the development is centralized and it applies to most of RMS is doing. I think it may also apply to proprietaty software too, since it's mostly about development process, not free/non-free issues.
Many free (as in speech) books are available on dead tree (for a fee), the same way you can get the latest Linux distro without downloading.
The think is that if the US stopped making ennemies everywhere it can (but we don't care, we're the strongest), you could have the kind of security we have in Canada and not be bothered with terrorism. If we make controle tougher it would be only to please the US. Of course we can do a bit on our part, but we're not going to change every law here because it pleases the US and makes it more secure.
Time to change the name to "People's Republic of the United States"...
have active cooling on the north bridge I may have missed something but I was under the impression that on Hammer, the north bridge was on the CPU (not on the board).
2002: New RedHat Kernel Patch Illegal to Explain to U.S. Users
2012: New RedHat Kernel Illegal to Explain to U.S. Users
2022: Engineering Illegal to Explain to U.S. Users
Note that there is still some work to do for bringing Speex to wireless communications. Speex is designed to be robust to packet loss but not bit corruption. Some layer would likely be needed for that...
Concerning my approach on CELP and patents... My idea was to use "old" stuff: I'm using algorithms that are either not patented or for which the patents have expired. I've read lots of early 80's papers for that... I've kept away from "clever tricks" (e.g. ACELP) and for that reason I know Speex is sub-optimal. However, with proper tuning, I get not too far from heavily patented standards (sometimes with a bit more complexity though) such as G.729 and still much better than GSM-FR.
For the patent issue, I mean that as far as I understand, I'm (e.g.) not allowed to use in Speex a patent that's found in iLBC. That AFAIK, makes iLBC incompatible with the GPL and most open-source software. A (irrevocable) statement saying "our patents may be used freely in any open-source software", would be great and (I think) help iLBC gain ground in the open-source community.
As for quality, don't get me wrong, I find the idea behind iLBC very interesting, and BTW, the "less than" before "2-5%" got stripped while posting. Anyway, what I mean is that at low (or no) packet loss, I consider the Speex quality to be better, e.g. to my ear (which I agree may be biased becaused I'm used to hearing Speex), Speex at 11 kbps is equal (or slightly better) in quality to iLBC at 14 kbps. Of course, I expect the situation to reverse when packet loss gets in the 10-30% range. I've been told that this doesn't happen often, but I'm not a network expert.
Chips are not available for all standard codecs and there are chips available for non-standard codecs. Acceptance is what decides and it takes time. However, Speex being free of expensive patent royalties probably helps.
Well (at least in case of Speex), it's not really "more projects for the same decelopers", but "more projects with more developers". I started Speex without being associated to Xiph. Now we join Xiph and project is already beta), so we're adding to the manpower, not diluting it.
(From Speex author) The problem with iLBC is that AFAIK, it is patented. They give access to their patents as long as you're using it in iLBC. That requirement is AFAIK incompatible with the GPL and requirements of most open-source licenses. Also, the quality is good at high packet loss, but for reasonnable operation (2-5%), the Speex quality is (to my ear better). Last thing: the CELP patent is expired and I have been careful not to include things like ACELP and other patented algorithms.
One thing that Speex can do that you can't do with telephone is transmit wideband (50-7000 Hz frequency band) speech. This allows much better quality and intelligibility. Once you try it, you can't go back to narrowband. Unfortunately the current VoIP apps that use Speex are narrowband-only for now, but that may change in the future.
Probably something you've done. For normal use, it's between 5% and 30% on my PIII/1GHz, depending on the sampling rate (8kHz or 16 kHz, only mono supported) and the bit-rate. The encoder also has a "complexity" option similar to the -1 to -9 options in gzip.
(From Speex author) We're currently developing ways to integrate with standards like H323 and SIP. The idea is to make VoIP apps use Speex in a standard way so they can all communicate using Speex. It doesn't matter is Speex itself is a (ITU-T/IETF/ETSI/name it) standard.
(I am the Speex author) There are already at least two Windows front-ends: here and here. There may be others I'm not aware of. Note that I haven't developed of tested any of these since I don't use Windows.
Try explaining to the DOJ that a browser is really part of an OS, but a security fix is not...
Yes, and by the time you're on the ground your ass is at 2000 degrees (choose your unit)...
...record companies now may be able to weasel out of paying the artists
The artists, they think that just because they're the ones that work hard to create that music, they're entitled to some part of the profits. Shame on them! They should make their effort in order to to help the poor guys from Sony/BMG/EMI/... so they can make a living. With all these music terrorists around, it's really hard being a major label.