I might move between up to 5 computers during a week. Is there anything wrong with me wanting to take my music with me on my iPod?
Plug in iPod. Play songs stored on iPod via iTunes on the computer.
No, you can't permanently download the songs from the iPod to the computer - maybe use a DVD instead, and get a backup in the process? Even Apple's DRM allows you to have 5 (IIRC) authorised copies of a song you've downloaded from iTMS on various computers and players.
Next time you comment, make sure you know what you're talking about. Sheesh. Bet you'd be one of the first to cry FUD on a Microsoft says something bad about Linux story.
The whole game and all its graphics would have to be pruned to fit the Wii.
Graphics can be trimmed without losing quality (for the target resolution), assuming that the Wii graphics chip supports the same graphics compression mechanisms as the XBox360 and PS£. 1280x720 is around 4x as many pixels as 640x480, 3x as 720x480. You can remove the top level mip-map detail from all graphics and the drop in rendering resolution will mean that the effect of this will not be noticed. Considering that graphics will be the majority of memory use in a game, the drop in system memory will not be as bad is it would seem at first glance. You could probably remove two mip map levels if you needed, assuming that most people would be playing on a 480i device.
However the drop in CPU power will affect gameplay, AI, physics and so on. If you are talking about 1.5x to 2x the CPU power of the GameCube, then that's not a lot extra to work with, given having to handle the controllers, networking, USB and so on as well. You've gotta accept that a 6 thread, 3 core 3.2GHz CPU as the XBox360 has will beat a ~750MHz single threaded single core CPU, even if the latter is far more efficient per clock. Squeezing a codebase onto the Wii from the XBox360 or PS3 will require cutting corners in your algorithms. Or writing more efficient routines.
If you're in Toronto for under 3 days though, the $10/day is acceptable.
If you're going to check the internet for an hour every other day over the course of a week, the $5 a day is acceptable.
However I suspect that most people will go for the safe $29 option. So if they only use it for 4 hours over their visit duration, the company has made an extra $9. If the per hour and per day fees were set at a reasonable level, then more people would go for them, thus possibly reducing the income to the company. $3/hr and $6/day seems a bit more reasonable though.
Does the GPL really have to be an infectious virus that transmits it's license to anything that comes near it?
Yes.
The whole point of someone choosing to release their code under the GPL is that they don't want the code to become less free in the future, nor non-free software to utilise the code, or part of the code. That is the right of the developer of the software, and if they want that, they can choose to do that.
If they wish to allow less free code to utilise their code, they can release it under the LGPL.
The issue is the GPL loophole of 'serverizing' GPL code, because then you can claim that you aren't directly linking to the GPL code, you're only communicating with it. Quite clearly when the 'serverizing' is being used in a manner to replace linking it should be treated as linking.
If the 'serverized' software is actually running as a server however, on a remote system, then it becomes more murky. Firstly the server is in-house, not distributed. Secondly this would logically be a valid 'serverizing'.
The method of adding functionality to a GPL application shouldn't be the issue. Clearly the client application distributed to end users is comprised of GPL software (JIN) and proprietary extensions, and they communicate with each other.
Clearly the fact that they asked to license the software and were refused (or offered a reasonable offer which they turned down) shows they were aware that it was GPL and wanted to license it under different terms. The fact they they went ahead and tried to bypass the license but still use the code shows extreme bad faith.
This may be an issue with the GPL wording though, which leaves this loophole that can be exploited by proprietary developers. Turn the GPL software you want into a server, release the source to the modifications made here, then keep all your own proprietary stuff in the client that communicates with the GPL server, then ship both together to run on the user's system. Clearly the GPL needs some effort made to outlaw 'serverising' GPL code in the same way that dynamically linking or statically linking code is outlawed. Clearly the fact that someone picks the GPL over the LGPL is because they don't want someone using their code with non-Open Source code additions.
Of course you need to allow the situation where the server functionality is explicitly added to the code base by the developer(s), e.g., something like Apache should not be restricted from serving to IE, for example (I know Apache isn't GPL, but you know what I mean). I think that this can be allowed safely, clearly the software is a server by definition, whereas a chess client is not a server by definition, and also the client and 'server' are distributed together, require each other, and run at the same time.
The ability to run Windows will sell more Mac hardware, which gives Apple more money, and increases their marketshare.
People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.
Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.
As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.
The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.
Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.
"But at 16gb you could keep a good bit of your life there, provided you aren't working in audio or video. I keep a 1GB stick on my keychain which is enough for almost anything."
Two years ago it would have been:
But at 1GB you could keep a good bit of your life there, provided you aren't working in audio or video. I keep a 64MB stick on my keychain which is enough for almost anything.
Four years ago it would have been:
But at 64MB you could keep a good bit of your life there, provided you aren't working in audio or video. The convenience would make this a useful investment and allow us to throw the good old floppy away for good.
In 2010 it'll be:
But at 512GB you could keep a good bit of your life there. I keep a 32GB stick on my keychain which is enough for almost anything.
You are entirely correct however, the media can 'suggest' their viewpoint or opinion very clearly to the viewing public without any punishment. The media are weasels, what they say are weasel words.
Slashdot Mirror
I might move between up to 5 computers during a week. Is there anything wrong with me wanting to take my music with me on my iPod?
Plug in iPod. Play songs stored on iPod via iTunes on the computer.
No, you can't permanently download the songs from the iPod to the computer - maybe use a DVD instead, and get a backup in the process? Even Apple's DRM allows you to have 5 (IIRC) authorised copies of a song you've downloaded from iTMS on various computers and players.
Next time you comment, make sure you know what you're talking about. Sheesh. Bet you'd be one of the first to cry FUD on a Microsoft says something bad about Linux story.
The whole game and all its graphics would have to be pruned to fit the Wii.
Graphics can be trimmed without losing quality (for the target resolution), assuming that the Wii graphics chip supports the same graphics compression mechanisms as the XBox360 and PS£. 1280x720 is around 4x as many pixels as 640x480, 3x as 720x480. You can remove the top level mip-map detail from all graphics and the drop in rendering resolution will mean that the effect of this will not be noticed. Considering that graphics will be the majority of memory use in a game, the drop in system memory will not be as bad is it would seem at first glance. You could probably remove two mip map levels if you needed, assuming that most people would be playing on a 480i device.
However the drop in CPU power will affect gameplay, AI, physics and so on. If you are talking about 1.5x to 2x the CPU power of the GameCube, then that's not a lot extra to work with, given having to handle the controllers, networking, USB and so on as well. You've gotta accept that a 6 thread, 3 core 3.2GHz CPU as the XBox360 has will beat a ~750MHz single threaded single core CPU, even if the latter is far more efficient per clock. Squeezing a codebase onto the Wii from the XBox360 or PS3 will require cutting corners in your algorithms. Or writing more efficient routines.
If you're in Toronto for under 3 days though, the $10/day is acceptable.
If you're going to check the internet for an hour every other day over the course of a week, the $5 a day is acceptable.
However I suspect that most people will go for the safe $29 option. So if they only use it for 4 hours over their visit duration, the company has made an extra $9. If the per hour and per day fees were set at a reasonable level, then more people would go for them, thus possibly reducing the income to the company. $3/hr and $6/day seems a bit more reasonable though.
Does the GPL really have to be an infectious virus that transmits it's license to anything that comes near it?
Yes.
The whole point of someone choosing to release their code under the GPL is that they don't want the code to become less free in the future, nor non-free software to utilise the code, or part of the code. That is the right of the developer of the software, and if they want that, they can choose to do that.
If they wish to allow less free code to utilise their code, they can release it under the LGPL.
The issue is the GPL loophole of 'serverizing' GPL code, because then you can claim that you aren't directly linking to the GPL code, you're only communicating with it. Quite clearly when the 'serverizing' is being used in a manner to replace linking it should be treated as linking.
If the 'serverized' software is actually running as a server however, on a remote system, then it becomes more murky. Firstly the server is in-house, not distributed. Secondly this would logically be a valid 'serverizing'.
The method of adding functionality to a GPL application shouldn't be the issue. Clearly the client application distributed to end users is comprised of GPL software (JIN) and proprietary extensions, and they communicate with each other.
Clearly the fact that they asked to license the software and were refused (or offered a reasonable offer which they turned down) shows they were aware that it was GPL and wanted to license it under different terms. The fact they they went ahead and tried to bypass the license but still use the code shows extreme bad faith.
This may be an issue with the GPL wording though, which leaves this loophole that can be exploited by proprietary developers. Turn the GPL software you want into a server, release the source to the modifications made here, then keep all your own proprietary stuff in the client that communicates with the GPL server, then ship both together to run on the user's system. Clearly the GPL needs some effort made to outlaw 'serverising' GPL code in the same way that dynamically linking or statically linking code is outlawed. Clearly the fact that someone picks the GPL over the LGPL is because they don't want someone using their code with non-Open Source code additions.
Of course you need to allow the situation where the server functionality is explicitly added to the code base by the developer(s), e.g., something like Apache should not be restricted from serving to IE, for example (I know Apache isn't GPL, but you know what I mean). I think that this can be allowed safely, clearly the software is a server by definition, whereas a chess client is not a server by definition, and also the client and 'server' are distributed together, require each other, and run at the same time.
The ability to run Windows will sell more Mac hardware, which gives Apple more money, and increases their marketshare.
People will not worry about having to use a new operating system, they can fall back on Windows without having useless hardware. What would have been a no-sale is now a potential sale for Apple, lots of people are curious about Macs and Mac OS X, but were put off by the risk if they didn't like the software.
Other people can get two systems in one, ideal for laptop users. Others can keep on running that essential Windows app.
As Mac OS X marketshare increases, more and more of those essential Windows apps will get a Mac version, especially if their customers start demanding it - "I hate having to reboot into windows just to run your software", etc.
The road that Apple does not want to go is to support the Windows API out of the box. In this situation, there is less incentive to port to Mac OS X, if your Windows version will just run anyway. Some people think that Apple will support this however, that there will be a Windows.framework in an upcoming version of the OS.
Of course, I've had a Mac for just over a year, and I barely touch my Windows PC now.
"But at 16gb you could keep a good bit of your life there, provided you aren't working in audio or video. I keep a 1GB stick on my keychain which is enough for almost anything."
Two years ago it would have been:
But at 1GB you could keep a good bit of your life there, provided you aren't working in audio or video. I keep a 64MB stick on my keychain which is enough for almost anything.
Four years ago it would have been:
But at 64MB you could keep a good bit of your life there, provided you aren't working in audio or video. The convenience would make this a useful investment and allow us to throw the good old floppy away for good.
In 2010 it'll be:
But at 512GB you could keep a good bit of your life there. I keep a 32GB stick on my keychain which is enough for almost anything.
"In a sudden twist of events, a Washington D.C. court has allowed the continued use of DISH PVRs, sold by EchoStar Communications."
Here, on ExtremeTech
amightywind, we meet again!
You are entirely correct however, the media can 'suggest' their viewpoint or opinion very clearly to the viewing public without any punishment. The media are weasels, what they say are weasel words.
My username > * > Your username!
;)
Whos Pwned Now
(woo, end of day immaturity)