And 2^6 is only 64, which means that one gets 64 levels of red, 64 levels of green, 64 levels of blue, and 64 levels of grey.
8 bits per colour yields 256 levels in each case above.
Even with 255 steps between black and white, `smooth' gradients sometimes still appear banded; with only 63, it's significantly worse.
Though, the colour-separation is probably much less noticable in anything that's in motion, with the colours shifting around like they do in most movies and video-games;)
This actually seems like a somewhat silly debate to be having now, since we've already been through most of the `only 6 bits/channel' experience back when the graphics cards had the same limitation--some of them were even limited to 5 bits per channel (or less!) and that was in the 1990s.
I didn't actually see anything about DRM in the article, just a claim that `mandatory managed copy' allows consumers to copy the data from the medium.
Given that there's no need for special hooks in a readable *medium* to enable copying, I guess that the fact that they emphasise something as mundane as `you can copy this' implies something fishy. Like, they presumably mean `we have a way of enabling you to copy data within limits.'
The fact that it's *readable* is enough to enable copying--just read the data, and then write it somewhere else. So, the `we can enable you to copy with limits' is really just `we can limit your copying'.
So, Intel is apparently doing nothing but advocating a DRM scheme. How is that `standing up for consumers'?
Sting's cameo-character was executed for excessive bravery, because it made life things difficult for regular un-extraordinary people trying to live simple un-extraordinary lives.
It does not matter if the consumer fills it with music he or she already had. If that music is legal, then it would still cost about $10,000 to fill it. Whether you buy the music before or after, the price is the same.
Sure, but the period over which that $10k is spent is potentially much longer: I'm 24 years old, and I've been buying CDs for 16 years. $10k over 16 years is an average of $625 per year. At an average of $10/CD (which might even be high, in my case--I got quite a few cheap CDs from those BMG or Columbia House deals, and then there are the the various CDs that I've bought for $~6 at Borders or Newbury Comics--some were used, some of them were just cheap), that's about 62 CDs per year, which sounds high at first consideration..., but ends up being reasonable. Five CDs every month? Ten CDs every two months? A thousand CDs after 16 years? I don't have quite that many CDs--I've got only about three hundred--but I've gone for many months without buying CDs, anbut I have several friends, younger than I, who do have thousands of them.
Of course, at $10/CD, I'm assuming an average of 10 tracks per CD to meet your figure of $1/track, and I'm not sure if that's accurate....
Now, if we've got to the point where we can accept twenty-somethings having $10k CD-collections, let's consider the thirty-somethings who've had another ten years to accumulate vinyl and cassettes....
"You won't have free software if everyone can just use it without contributing back to the source."
One of the premises of the GPL is almost exactly the opposite of what you just said: you don't have free software if everyone can't just use it without being made to contribute back to the source.
"Noone can FORCE you to upgrade. I've got Office 95, on Windows 95, 7 years old on one machine. [I've got a linux box too - please don't unleash the ninjas] Supported? I think not. However, I haven't been forced to upgrade anything by anyone. As long as the commercial product did everything the submitter needs, why would they ever have to upgrade?"
ahhh, right. so why is it that people have continued to choose unsafe, broken, archaic platforms for so many decades? sorry, it's simply not valid to claim that laziness is the reason.
At some point, in an e-mail message, I wrote a rant that relates to this....
We at Transcept have about 20 linux boxes (the number is growing, because every product that we ship, now, has a linux system inside, and the prototypes actually count as general-purpose workstations and servers), and something like 50 employees.
Everyone already had a MSWindows NT PC before the linux boxes became part of our lives, so those PCs stayed as they were.
Many of our employees sit in front of old MSWindows PCs with full-screen VNC or telnet sessions connecting them to the linux boxes all day, which brings up an intersting point about unix-like systems: you don't have to have one at your desk to use it and have it be the centre of your world--it's a real multi-user system. If it's more cost-effective to have a few powerful `servers' (mainframe or `micromainframes', the latter being highpower'd PC hardware, except that the "P" isn't really appliccable anymore) and a many cheap terminals, peopele do that (and it is, so they do). Does this sort of setup count less? If you have 2 linux boxes, and 100 people spending their entire day in VNC or telnet or remote X11 sessions interfacing with those 2 computers, do you get 2 points, or 100?
non-gcc C compiliers are avalible
non-gnu C libraries are avalible
non-gnu shells are avalible
non-gnu archiving/compression utilities are avalible
non-gnu "binutils" aren't, strictly speaking, avalible for Linux for x86 to my knowledge, but they could easily be made
non-gnu text vewing programs are avalible
non-gnu "curses" libraries are avalible, though outdated/obsolete
Correct, and if you got rid of all of the components of GNU (or even a large portion), you wouldn't be running GNU.
But `would' (or `could') and `are' are very different things.
If you removed all of the things that made Windows NT `Windows', you'd end up running something other than Windows. But arguing that "we shouldn't call the stock system `Windows' because there are lots of alternatives to everything that it ships with" is just silly. The same goes for for any OS.
"...although they have a monopoly, that has come through selling good software at low prices and therefore high volume."
This is very misleading, at best.
Microsoft's monopoly was not built independently `from the ground up'.
Microsoft's monopoly came from IBM.
It wasn't that Microsoft was able to sell its product to consumers, but that IBM was able to sell its product to them, with Microsoft's product bundled.
GTK+ looks to me to be a console graphics libary (as GTK is an X11 interface libary)
Actually, "GTK+" is the correct name for what you're calling "GTK". GTK+ lays atop GDK. The "+" is documented in the GTK+ FAQ:
1.4 What is the + in GTK+?
Peter Mattis informed the gtk mailing list that:
"I originally wrote gtk which included the three libraries, libglib, libgdk and libgtk. It featured a flat widget hierarchy. That is, you couldn't derive a new widget from an existing one. And it contained a more standard callback mechanism instead of the signal mechanism now present in gtk+. The + was added to distinguish between the original version of gtk and the new version. You can think of it as being an enhancement to the original gtk that adds object oriented features."
You don't need root to use the framebuffer
on
GTK+ without X!
·
· Score: 2
You need write permission to/dev/fbsomething.
There is a PAM module that some Linux distributions ship with and that provides chowning files to a user upon login of that user at the console.
In the worst case, you could create a `framebuffer' group, give the group r/w permissions on the framebuffer device-files, and put some users into that group.
Slashdot Mirror
And 2^6 is only 64, which means that one gets 64 levels of red, 64 levels of green, 64 levels of blue, and 64 levels of grey.
;)
8 bits per colour yields 256 levels in each case above.
Even with 255 steps between black and white, `smooth' gradients sometimes still appear banded; with only 63, it's significantly worse.
Though, the colour-separation is probably much less noticable in anything that's in motion, with the colours shifting around like they do in most movies and video-games
This actually seems like a somewhat silly debate to be having now, since we've already been through most of the `only 6 bits/channel' experience back when the graphics cards had the same limitation--some of them were even limited to 5 bits per channel (or less!) and that was in the 1990s.
I didn't actually see anything about DRM in the article, just a claim that `mandatory managed copy' allows consumers to copy the data from the medium.
Given that there's no need for special hooks in a readable *medium* to enable copying, I guess that the fact that they emphasise something as mundane as `you can copy this' implies something fishy. Like, they presumably mean `we have a way of enabling you to copy data within limits.'
The fact that it's *readable* is enough to enable copying--just read the data, and then write it somewhere else. So, the `we can enable you to copy with limits' is really just `we can limit your copying'.
So, Intel is apparently doing nothing but advocating a DRM scheme. How is that `standing up for consumers'?
Start here:
http://slashdot.org/users.pl?uid=1
Sting's cameo-character was executed for excessive bravery, because it made life things difficult for regular un-extraordinary people trying to live simple un-extraordinary lives.
Politicians campaigning in churches is not religion in politics, it's politics in religion. There's a difference.
More importantly: are you engaging in commerce with them?
Sure, but the period over which that $10k is spent is potentially much longer: I'm 24 years old, and I've been buying CDs for 16 years. $10k over 16 years is an average of $625 per year. At an average of $10/CD (which might even be high, in my case--I got quite a few cheap CDs from those BMG or Columbia House deals, and then there are the the various CDs that I've bought for $~6 at Borders or Newbury Comics--some were used, some of them were just cheap), that's about 62 CDs per year, which sounds high at first consideration..., but ends up being reasonable. Five CDs every month? Ten CDs every two months? A thousand CDs after 16 years? I don't have quite that many CDs--I've got only about three hundred--but I've gone for many months without buying CDs, anbut I have several friends, younger than I, who do have thousands of them.
Of course, at $10/CD, I'm assuming an average of 10 tracks per CD to meet your figure of $1/track, and I'm not sure if that's accurate....
Now, if we've got to the point where we can accept twenty-somethings having $10k CD-collections, let's consider the thirty-somethings who've had another ten years to accumulate vinyl and cassettes....
Have you tried GJay?
It does acoustic analysis and then generates playlists with attention paid to tempo, dominant frequencies, and user-specified ratings and colour.
You mean like Emacs does?
"It has moving parts. Sooner or later, it will fail."
And the number of writes that flash-memory can handle is limited. Sooner or later, it will also fail.
Depending on use, one medium's `sooner' may be later than the other medium's `later'.
I think that that was the point.
"You won't have free software if everyone can just use it without contributing back to the source."
One of the premises of the GPL is almost exactly the opposite of what you just said: you don't have free software if everyone can't just use it without being made to contribute back to the source.
"Noone can FORCE you to upgrade. I've got Office 95, on Windows 95, 7 years old on one machine. [I've got a linux box too - please don't unleash the ninjas] Supported? I think not. However, I haven't been forced to upgrade anything by anyone. As long as the commercial product did everything the submitter needs, why would they ever have to upgrade?"
So, what happens when you need another license?
What's the difference between calculating and computing?
There are a couple of different options for doing this in Python:
One is to use Christian Tismer's `Stackless Python'--the `uthread' module, if I recall correctly, allows the Python programmer to step op-by-op.
The other method is to use Python 2.3's generators (via the `yield' statement) (via the `from __future__ import generators' statement in Python 2.2).
There's an IBM-developerWorks article on the latter technique.
We at Transcept have about 20 linux boxes (the number is growing, because every product that we ship, now, has a linux system inside, and the prototypes actually count as general-purpose workstations and servers), and something like 50 employees.
Everyone already had a MSWindows NT PC before the linux boxes became part of our lives, so those PCs stayed as they were.
Many of our employees sit in front of old MSWindows PCs with full-screen VNC or telnet sessions connecting them to the linux boxes all day, which brings up an intersting point about unix-like systems: you don't have to have one at your desk to use it and have it be the centre of your world--it's a real multi-user system. If it's more cost-effective to have a few powerful `servers' (mainframe or `micromainframes', the latter being highpower'd PC hardware, except that the "P" isn't really appliccable anymore) and a many cheap terminals, peopele do that (and it is, so they do). Does this sort of setup count less? If you have 2 linux boxes, and 100 people spending their entire day in VNC or telnet or remote X11 sessions interfacing with those 2 computers, do you get 2 points, or 100?
none of those are neccisary
non-gcc C compiliers are avalible
non-gnu C libraries are avalible
non-gnu shells are avalible
non-gnu archiving/compression utilities are avalible
non-gnu "binutils" aren't, strictly speaking, avalible for Linux for x86 to my knowledge, but they could easily be made
non-gnu text vewing programs are avalible
non-gnu "curses" libraries are avalible, though outdated/obsolete
Correct, and if you got rid of all of the components of GNU (or even a large portion), you wouldn't be running GNU.
But `would' (or `could') and `are' are very different things.
If you removed all of the things that made Windows NT `Windows', you'd end up running something other than Windows. But arguing that "we shouldn't call the stock system `Windows' because there are lots of alternatives to everything that it ships with" is just silly. The same goes for for any OS.
OK, so maybe not with GCC, but the idea is valid and serious
Certainly--Common Lisp has been able to do this for more than a decade. See page 677 in `Common Lisp: the Language', second edition, by Steele.
What about httptunnel?
"...although they have a monopoly, that has come through selling good software at low prices and therefore high volume."
This is very misleading, at best.
Microsoft's monopoly was not built independently `from the ground up'.
Microsoft's monopoly came from IBM.
It wasn't that Microsoft was able to sell its product to consumers, but that IBM was able to sell its product to them, with Microsoft's product bundled.
Do you remember the fable of the dosfish?
What I would like is a mail client that would 'dowongrade' HTML to plain text for viewing
How about one that `upgrades' plain text for viewing, stripping the asterisks from "*foo*" and making it bold, like what Mozilla does with ":)"?
Actually, "GTK+" is the correct name for what you're calling "GTK". GTK+ lays atop GDK. The "+" is documented in the GTK+ FAQ:
You need write permission to /dev/fbsomething.
There is a PAM module that some Linux distributions ship with and that provides chowning files to a user upon login of that user at the console.
In the worst case, you could create a `framebuffer' group, give the group r/w permissions on the framebuffer device-files, and put some users into that group.
You should be able to get the GNOME version running, without an X server.