Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: YD <ydtechHAT@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 Jan 2006 12:28:12 -0300
On Mon, 23 Jan 2006 19:37:03 -0800, John Larkin
<jjlarkin@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>On 23 Jan 2006 17:49:41 -0800, Winfield Hill
><Winfield_member@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>>The upcoming Analog Hole bill would require secret, expensive
>>technology that no one can examine, and or talk about if they
>>have, even after paying a $10,000 fee, according to techdirt,
>>http://techdirt.com/articles/20060123/1352234_F.shtml
>
>They'll never make it mandatory for general-purpose sar adc chips to
>search for watermarks. And you can always make an audio-quality [1]
>delta-sigma in an FPGA. But why do you think it important to be able
>to bootleg someone else's intellectual property? If you don't like the
>product, don't buy it.
>
It may also end up determining which platform you're allowed to
reproduce it on, which $$$proprietary$$$ software to use and possibly
demanding a hardware upgrade every two weeks or so.
- YD.
--
Remove HAT if replying by mail.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Paul Hovnanian P.E.
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- References:
- Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: Winfield Hill
- Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- From: John Larkin
- Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Prev by Date: Re: Fast LEDs for optical pulse generation?
- Next by Date: Re: Data Book Project
- Previous by thread: Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Next by thread: Re: Analog Hole Bill Would Require Secret Tech No One Can Examine
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
