Slashdot Mirror


Slashback: GSM, Buffy, Wobble

Slashback tonight brings you updates on the future of Iraq's cellular infrastructure, the real reason Buffy is departing, Intuit and Macrovision, and more. Read on below for the details.

Macrovision, everyone's favorite killjoy. byteCoder writes "Apparently Macrovision marketing is trying to put a good spin on Intuit's plan to eliminate the use of Macrovision's DRM software for pre-paid copies of TurboTax (as discussed last week here). This reminds me of the classic Monty Python line: "I'm not dead yet!""

That's got to be some spin -- An anonymous reader points to Eric Hellweg's Tech Investor on CNN, which suggests that the backlash which triggered Intuit's copy-protection reversal may have cost the company $100 million.

Can I use my Go Phone there? An anonymous reader writes ""In a follow-up to the Slashdot article 'CDMA vs GSM in Post-war Iraq,' The Reg has a story about how MCI has won the contract to rebuild the mobile phone system with GSM. This is a good thing for the people of Iraq that GSM is being used, GSM is the world standard and several U.S. companies (AT&T for one) are switching to GSM."

Adding Money to Insult. Neophytus writes "Remember the 'Star Wars Kid' that waxy.org found a couple of weeks ago? Well after over a million downloads the guy has been found. His name is Ghyslain, a 15-year-old tenth grader living in Quebec. Jish contacted him and got a brief, but interesting, interview."

No unlimited copy privileges in jail. the-dude-man writes "As reported here A 19-year-old pleaded guilty to costing DirectTV for leaking information about the secrets of DirectTV's most advanced anti-piracy technology to hacker websites. As part of the plea deal, Serebryany admitted to copying and distributing 800 megabytes of scanned documents from DirecTV, costing the company $68,000 in investigatory costs. Both sides stipulated to sentencing factors that carry six months to a year in prison under federal guidelines -- assuming no prior convictions. The sentencing court can depart from the guidelines only if the judge finds that the proposed sentence doesn't adequately reflect the facts of the case. According to court records affidavit, Serebryany's adventures began when he found himself with access to some of DirecTV's most coveted technological secrets while working for his uncle at a document imaging company at the office of a Los Angeles law firm, Jones, Day, Reavis and Pogue. The firm was representing the satellite TV company in a lawsuit against NDS, the makers of the smart cards DirecTV uses to control access to its signal."

For every 11 discontented customers, there's one of these happy oddballs! RedWingsSuck writes "A few weeks ago, I asked /. users what they thought about the wobble my 12" Power Book has developed. Last week Apple Care told me that I could send my laptop off for repairs. I decided to drive to the local Apple Store, about 15 minutes away, and drop it off. They had my laptop for less than 3 days. When I went in to pick it up, they told me that it was sent in and the BC (bottom cover) was repaired. It doesn't wobble anymore, so I am happy. I was really surprised with how fast it was fixed. I didn't mean to sound like I regretted my AiBook purchase in the last post, and now I even happier."

Relax, it's a television show. HardcoreGamer writes "Buffy creator Joss Whedon responds to questions from New York Times readers on Buffy the Vampire Slayer as it comes to the end of its 7 season run. He also discusses the now-canceled Firefly and concludes with one of the key reasons why the show is ending: 'I'm simply too tired.'"

323 comments

  1. I'm sure the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    That Sarah Michelle Gellar wants out, that the ratings are declining, and that no one wants Dawn the Vampire Slayer all contributed to Buffy leaving the air, too.

    1. Re:I'm sure the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh, aren't ALL vampires slain in the presence of dawn? [ducks]

    2. Re:I'm sure the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The bitch refuses to even do voice-overs for spinoff stuff.
      No matter what the pay.
      Apparently she's a 'serious actress' and accepting such jobs would be bad for her 'career'.

    3. Re:I'm sure the fact by ShaiHulud-23 · · Score: 2, Funny

      I actually came up with two lame puns for this and couldn't decide which one to use, so here's both.

      Dawn the Vampire Slayer... So each week we just watch a sunrise? Boring.

      Dawn the Vampire Slayer... So *that's* what the blue liquid was in Blade.

    4. Re:I'm sure the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      all these are valid points, but nothing in tonight's finale implied that this was absolutely and forever, the last Buffy episode; the potential for "Buffy, The Mature Vampire Slayer" and "Thirty-Something Buffy" was not eliminated by any of tonight's activities. In fact, SMG's smile in the last scene conveyed the hint of a new beginning.

    5. Re:I'm sure the fact by Chasing+Amy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      As for the ratings, I have to say that I'm in the happy minority who *LOVED* Season 6. I think it was great for Joss and co. to put Buffy through that very dark and disillusioning period that many early twentysomethings fall into for a while after school is over and real life sets in. I think so many long-time fans were just too dedicated to the more lighthearted highschoolish years to really approve of the direction of Season 6, so the show's ratings dipped too far for comfort.

      However, Season 6 contains some of the best writing and dialogue, and while not everyone likes the plot arcs used (too dark for so many tastes) they actually touched on some really interesting stuff that's true to life. You could really see Joss and Marti's early-20's angst just pouring onto the screen, darker and more disturbing than *Buffy* had been before. The lighthearted edge that fans loved through the highschool and early college show really *couldn't* be there as much when Buffy herself was to disillusioned and depressed. The writing and dialogue was as good as ever, but with the harder edge and lack of as much softening lighthearted stuff too many longtime fans were put off.

      But think of all the great things that happened in Season 6. The finale episodes, with the death of Tara and Willow's evilification, were some of the most riveting of the series--even if Tara's death *was* hard for a lot of fans, particularly in the lesbian community. The musical episode, obviously, stands on its own and is so highly acclaimed by critics and most fans that it's high on the list of Best Episodes Ever. Even if the Doublemeat Palace episode was mindnumbing on many levels, it accurately captured the awful experience of being an underling at the menial jobs so many people work. Buffy and Spike had one of the most intense and incredible love scenes in the whole series, and we got to watch their relationship decline into the degradation that really does happen in abusive or unhealthy relationships. There was so much great stuff there--great, but often too dark for most *Buffy* fans.

      As for "Dawn the Vampire Slayer"--God, I was so hoping that the big "show you the world" speech Buffy gave Dawn at the end of Season 6's finale would turn into more screentime with the maturing Dawn, but it really didn't go very far. The Potentials ended up with the instruction that Dawn was seemingly going to get, based on Buffy's remarks at the end of the past season. Mmmm, little Dawnie really butters my toast! Hey, Michelle Trachtenberg *does* turn 18 and legal this year. ;-) Yummy. I was tempted to go to BuffyAuction.com and bid on the outfit she wore when she was seducing that jock in Season 7, but that would just be too creepy--plus my girlfriend wouldn't quite fit into it anyway. :-o

      --

      Chasing Amy
      (We all chase Amy...)
      "The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws"-Tacitus
    6. Re:I'm sure the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ummm, I want Dawn.

    7. Re:I'm sure the fact by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      I have to say that I'm in the happy minority who *LOVED* Season 6.

      I totally agree. I thought The Trio were hysterical throughout the season. And I thought that Season 7 was kind of boring, because there was essentially one story and they held on to it like an over-tired soap-opera.

    8. Re:I'm sure the fact by cquark · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think that season 6 was much darker than its predecessors, though it did hurt that they tried to carry off the humor element of the season with the season antagonist, the Trio, who could have worked well as a monster of the week but who were grating rather than amusing when their antics were repeated week after week.

      Continuity with prior seasons was abandoned, both in terms of character and in setting. The most egregrious example was magic becoming addictive. Wouldn't Tara or Giles have ever mentioned that magic is the equivalent of crack to Willow, especially since there are "dealers" and magic crack houses? The magic addiction arc is especially frustrating as it not only hijacked the promising power corrupts arc for Willow, but it was completely useless as part of the dark Willow arc since it was Tara's death, not magic crack, that made Willow the nemesis in the final episodes.

      The writing has many other flaws such as Buffy coming to an epiphany every week about her depression then ignoring it the following week and Spike going to get his chip out (which not only the dialog implies but the actor was told was to happen) but ends up with a soul. Let's take a quick look at the dialog. Some of the worst dialog ever on the show again comes from the addiction arc, especially in the final episodes when Willow's saying things like "I'm so juiced," and at the very end, Xander saving the world with his yellow crayon speech was just embarrassing.

      There were many ideas with great potential in season six like the dark Willow arc we almost saw, but the execution was so poor that it's almost impossible to enjoy them. It's not the issues they brought up, such as depression, bad boyfriends, or even addiction that were the problem, but how they handled them compared to earlier seasons.

      Look at how they handled the deaths of Joyce or Miss Calendar compared to Tara. Both of the prior deaths carried so much more meaning and emotion for the characters. The ending also lacks originality. We just saw Willow go off for revenge after Tara was hurt at the end of last season, and we saw Giles do the same when Miss Calendar died before that. The "dead lesbian/evil lesbian (saved by the good man)" ending has been done dozens of time in other books and movies, with Alyson Hannigan not only playing that ending in Buffy that year, but she also played that in the movie Rip It Off just before that. And of course, Willow has to destroy the world; we're not quite sure how that comes out of her character, but Buffy villains do that so she has to do that too. Why couldn't they have done something remotely original?

    9. Re:I'm sure the fact by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      I thought the smile was because she wasn't going to get stabbed in the liver anymore.

    10. Re:I'm sure the fact by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, I'd have to disagree with a few of the things you said here.. First of all, Buffy's coming to an "epiphany" at the end of every episode and then ignoring it isn't all that uncommon when someone is dealing with depression - I thought they handled her attitude, her difficulty coming back to life and caring about the world again quite well. And really, none of us have ever been ripped out of heaven, so how do we know how it feels? :)

      Secondly, the addiction with Willow...I thought they also handled that well...and the addiction DID play a part in why she turned to magic (evil magic) to end her pain...by ending the world. I thought it was very well planned out and thought out. The abilities that magic gave her (much like any addiction would make you feel slightly more than you are, until you start to come off of it) were a huge aphrodiasic...and her addiction was the first to fall when she was so devasted by Tara's death. It was actually very close to reality, as an addict or alcohol could react to something so traumatic happening to them...they wouldn't want to face their pain, they would run from it by running to their addiction. That is exactly what Willow did...and when Xander helped her get in touch with her emotions again, she was able to let it out rather than run from it.

      The writing on Buffy, in my opinion, has always been suberb - a wonderful combination of humanity, humor and reality. Very nicely done.

  2. Slain by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

    'I'm simply too tired.'

    Yes, seasons six and seven are certainly evidence that somebody was "asleep at the wheel." In fact, they were quite reminiscient of an enormous vehicular accident...

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:Slain by minaguib · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      My girlfriend's HP laptop suddenly developed a "vary-dark-screen" weirdness where everything worked except the screen was EXTREMELY dark, but you could see that the stuff was there. This included the POST in the BIOS which told me it was not a software problem.

      I did some searching online and it was apparent it's a fairly common problem related to the "inverter" component. Either the wire's loose and just needed to bere-seated, or the inverter itself (a tiny board) has gone bad and needed to be replaced.

      I didn't feel like pulling any stunts, and laptop was only a couple of months old, so I decided to take it back where it was bought from (Future Shop on St. Catherine st. in Montreal, Canada - Same parent company as Best Buys in the States).

      The technician there looked at it, scratched his head, said he's never seen this problem before, and that he'd have to ship it to HP for them to take a look. He took the laptop, gave us a slip of paper, and said he'd call us when it's ready fr pickup.

      I completely forgot about it until, OVER A MONTH LATER, my girlfriend mentioned that she still did not have her laptop. A call to Future Shop got us "we don't know where youre laptop is . . . call us back in a few days"

      A few days after we call, and we're told "oh, your laptop has been here for a while.. come pick it up"... "Where was the phone call we were told we'll receive ?" ... "I don't know".

      So between Future Shop, HP, and possibly even a few border crossings, it takes over a month to replace a $60 inverter or a 10-second wire re-adjustment.

    2. Re:Slain by Stonent1 · · Score: 1

      I have a part on my website about fixing screens: http://home.attbi.com/~stonent/screenfix.htm

      It may not be the inverter, it could be the bulb.

    3. Re:Slain by fenix+down · · Score: 1

      A month? Shit. I'm sure I've posted this story before, but I returned a Sony camcorder and got it back about a year and a half later, in the form of a new model of equivalent price, since they broke the original while trying to fix the battery contacts and the model had been discontinued by the time they gave up.

    4. Re:Slain by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I watched the finale of season 7 (ie the final ever episode) last night.

      Unlike previous finale eps it really did feel tired and lacked a lot in comparison to other episodes.

  3. the real reason Buffy is departing..... by PS-SCUD · · Score: 5, Funny

    She wants to devote full time to being a pr0n star? *looks hopefull*

    --


    "Much work is lost, for the lack of a little more." -Edward H. Harriman
    1. Re:the real reason Buffy is departing..... by dghcasp · · Score: 4, Funny
      Buffy the Vampire Layer?

      It's not like it'd be so far off where the show is now...

      Buffy: I'm going out to hunt vampires. I need a big stake.

      Dawn: Don't let Spike rape you again!

      Willow: Oh, and while you're gone, I'm going to have a lesbian tryst!

      Faith: Ever notice how slaying makes you hungry and horny?

      Anya: Everyone's having sex but me! I need to get laid!

      Wait a minute... Did I just think that, or did I post it to slashdot? D'oh!

    2. Re:the real reason Buffy is departing..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Way too skinny. Bones sticking out don't appeal to enough people. SMB should just eat a sandwich, FFS, she'd be VERY hot with some meat on her, instead of looking anorexic. Wasn't there some issue with her refusing to pad her bra for the show a few years back so she'd have something RESEMBLING a cleavage? SO yeah, she was much hotter when she was younger, IMO.

    3. Re:the real reason Buffy is departing..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SMB? Sarah Michelle Baller? I don't get why people think she is such a babe either and I am a fan of the anorexic, heroin-chic look. Maybe I just don't go for blondes but she looks like your average skinny california blonde chick. Sure her character can kick ass and that is tre sexy, but as just another pretty face in Hollywood she doesn't even rate. Charisma Carpenter was always better looking (until she got preggers, don't know how well she recovered from that) and Dushku's got a better face than Geller too (but her figure is a little more manly, especially around the waist & hips, not really an hourglass figure there).

    4. Re:the real reason Buffy is departing..... by override11 · · Score: 1

      Dude, re-watch the first few seasons, Smokin hot. And the whole love spell thing gone bad, Buffy is like a uber horny crazed blonde in a tiny skirt?? Woohooo! :) She got a lot thinner in the later seasons, but looked darn good the first few out! :)

      --
      No I didnt spell check this post...
    5. Re:the real reason Buffy is departing..... by DustMagnet · · Score: 1

      It's been done: Buffy the Vampire Layer

      --
      'SBEMAIL!' is better than a goat!!
    6. Re:the real reason Buffy is departing..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      She got thinner when she stopped using a padded bra. Sorry dude, you've been had.

  4. Dawn the Vampire Slayer by Scoria · · Score: 5, Funny

    Dawn the Vampire Slayer

    Witness vampires and miscellaneous other creatures of the night defeated as Dawn petulantly screams. For instance: "Get out, get out, get out!"

    --
    Do you like German cars?
    1. Re:Dawn the Vampire Slayer by Dimensio · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      (minor spoilers if you're good at guessing things)

      Actually, the end of Buffy leaves an opening for any number of spinoffs with any number of actresses.

    2. Re:Dawn the Vampire Slayer by outsider007 · · Score: 2, Funny

      even worse with the hellmouth being closed, imagine the big bad they would come up with for season 8.
      the war on drugs?
      global warming?
      the sad thing is that I'd still be watching.

      --
      If you mod me down the terrorists will have won
    3. Re:Dawn the Vampire Slayer by batemanm · · Score: 1

      At the end of the episode it is mentioned that there are other hellmouths, leaving it open for a spinoff.

    4. Re:Dawn the Vampire Slayer by haruchai · · Score: 1

      Dawn wasn't one of the potentials so she didn't become blessed with Slayer powers. I was really hoping that this past season would have done something with her being the Key. I was looking forward to that in the finale. And I thought that Buffy was going to die.

      --
      Pain is merely failure leaving the body
    5. Re:Dawn the Vampire Slayer by Cpt_Kirks · · Score: 1

      It looked to me like the hellmouth was open, in a big way...

    6. Re:Dawn the Vampire Slayer by Shoggoth+of+Maul · · Score: 1

      Sure. It'll probably be about Angel or something stupid like that.

  5. Firefly by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 4, Informative

    Perhaps Buffy was getting tired, but Firefly was just starting to shine! I hope Joss Whedon doesn't mean that he was tired in general, just tired in regards to BTVS. I'm still hopeful that Firefly will make a comeback someday. In any event, two of its actors have played villains on Joss Whedon's other shows, Angel and BTVS. I thought that was nice of him, helping the actors of his cancelled show by giving them parts on his still-running shows.

    1. Re:Firefly by satanami69 · · Score: 3, Informative

      "two of its actors have played villains on Joss Whedon's other shows"

      I also saw that Gina Torress, from Firefly, was in the Matrix Reloaded. It creeped me out because she's in every one of my favorite shows that gets canceled. I felt a bad vibe about the Matrix, but was delighted to see her.

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
    2. Re:Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You must've been a big fan of Cleopatra 2525, or perhaps the only one.

    3. Re:Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not much of a shock if you look at your own link and see that she's married to Laurence Fishburne.

    4. Re:Firefly by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 2, Funny

      And Morena Baccharin is sexy in that exotic Asian kind of way. Maybe that, or it's because she played a whore. Mmmmm ... Morena ...

      And yeah, Gina Torres is the sexy woman who played Jasime, the Devourer (a decidedly un-nasty, disgusting freak of a beast in Angel).

      Let's not forget Jewel Staite ... her character Kaylee was sexy in that innocent, home-girl kind of way, though it was revealed in one of the episodes how she got her position as mechanic wasn't exactly innocent! (Screwing the previous mechanic). That one was a real shocker. Man, I loved that show.

      Ohh yeah, and there's Summer Glau, sexy in that psycho-freak kinda way. Especially the girl-in-the-box part, where she's naked ... yeah that's really cool.

      And I'm not homosexual, but if I were, I would definitely be all over that Nathan Fillion! Mmmmm! (That one was for the girls)

    5. Re:Firefly by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Hey, Angel got renewed :)

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    6. Re:Firefly by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I'm not homosexual, but

      Yooo hoooo sweety... denial is not a river in Egypt.

    7. Re:Firefly by haeger · · Score: 1
      And I'm not homosexual, but if I were, I would definitely be all over that Nathan Fillion! Mmmmm! (That one was for the girls)

      Yeah, nice try there Nathan. Didn't think we'd spot You? ;-)

      .haeger

      --
      You are not entitled to your opinion. You are entitled to your informed opinion. -- Harlan Ellison
  6. Father O'day -- Give us a break by Squidgee · · Score: 5, Funny
    Since this article contains an Apple refrence (Which, btw, I've had good luck with Apple's repair services, even though my iBook had to go out of the country), inevitably we'll have to see the Father O'day troll. So, in order to route this, and give the mods the power to mod down based upon "redundant" (Muhahaha), here we go:

    I'm gay. Blah blah blah.
    --Some Priest

    Good for you!
    --Mister Apple-Impersonator.

    And there ya have it! Go back under the bridge trolls.

    1. Re:Father O'day -- Give us a break by Dylan+Zimmerman · · Score: 1

      Apple service is simply phenomenal. I called them at about 2PM central to get my PowerBook 5300 repaired and the box came 10 AM the next day. When I had it packed, I called the delivery company, the guy to pick it up was here within 15 minutes. Apple had it for two days, and then they shipped it back to me.

      Due to a rather unusual mix-up with my apartment complex's main office, I didn't get the package until a few weeks later, but that's hardly Apple's fault.

      Keep in mind, that was a PowerBook 5300. They stopped even making them in '96, yet they repaired it for free almost 6 years after it was canceled.

      I met a guy who had a different PowerBook (I forgot which model) and its hard drive started going bad about halfway through a flight from the US to Germany (I forgot the cities, too). He called Apple support from the plane and told them about the issue. They asked him for his serial number and told him that it would all be taken care of. When he landed, some representatives from the local Apple office were waiting for him. They gave him a new PowerBook with his broken PowerBook's serial number and he gave them the broken one. The only problem that he had was data loss, and that wasn't that significant because he had just gotten the PowerBook.

  7. Lightsaber kid by Tyrdium · · Score: 1

    Generally I save my fake swordfighting (including fake sounds made by him!) for off camera, where I can't be seen... I'm scared now...

    1. Re:Lightsaber kid by kwerle · · Score: 1

      The funny thing is how much better the remix is. Not that it's good, but it is SO much better. Makes me wonder how the original actors felt, playing with their own styrofoam sabers...

    2. Re:Lightsaber kid by badboy_tw2002 · · Score: 1

      I thought all light saber fights were fake. Unless the fanboys have finally taken it too far...God help us all!

  8. This should silence Iraqi reconstruction critics by George+Walker+Bush · · Score: 4, Funny

    Guess what -- our beloved USA-homegrown CDMA didn't win out in Iraq after all. So you all can take your allegations of US self-bias and shove it.

    --
    George W. Bush
    President, United States of America
  9. The real reason they quit by Qinopio · · Score: 5, Funny

    They tried to use illusions on Trogdor, but he burninated [spoilers] them all!

    ANDREW: Illusions? Against a burninator? (chuckles)

    --
    __________
    [Big Brick Wall]
    1. Re:The real reason they quit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I laughed my ass off when I saw this. For those who are not familiar, Trogdor the Burninator comes from Strong Bad email #58:
      http://www.homestarrunner.com/sbemail58.html
      They've got the Trogdor flash game too:
      http://www.homestarrunner.com/trogdor.html

  10. GSM is NOT the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...so why is it such a great thing that MCI is building it in Iraq?

    Eventually all carriers will have to move from whatever they're using to either WCDMA or cdma2000. The transition to WCDMA is not simple, and there are doubts that WCDMA will deliver on its promised performance. On the other hand, cdma2000 is much simpler to adopt, and has been proven to work (in Korea, for example.)

    GSM is dead. R.I.P.

    1. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Zebbers · · Score: 3, Insightful

      yea, sure. gsm is dead. yup. go build your own wcdma or cdma2000 network. go ahead. gsm is the standard, like it or not. there will be little consumer pressure for cmda as opposed to gsm. everyone wants gsm because its been the standard in europe/world and will now be the standard in the us as well.

      being technically superior does not automagically grant you standard status. christ, by youre logic one should never deploy anything because there is always something almost ready thats almost better.

    2. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by dmszero · · Score: 1
      im sure beta was the future too

      most carriers are changing to UTMS (3g GSM) not CDMA2k. eventually both standards will merge to facilitate global roaming, but for now, GSM / UTMS has a MUCH higher uptake rate than CDMA/CDMA2k

      i can roam almost anywhere in the world on GSM, with a CDMA phone, im limited to a select number of countries. i dont know which standard is "better" but like the whole VCR/BETA thing, its who gets the most installs, not who has the best technology who wins.

      GSM is far from dead.

      dms0

      --
      -= world leaders choose world leaders not us, not a democracy, not a revolution! =-
    3. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      GSM Dead? Now that's truly an ill-informed, naive American view of the world. When was the last time you left the states and saw what the rest of the world was doing?

    4. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      UTMS(3g GSM) = WCDMA....they are the same thing.


      So in a few years most major carriers should be offering some flavor of CDMA....so technically GSM is not the future.

    5. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by nrc · · Score: 1

      MCI will probably save a bundle by building the Iraqi network with GSM equipment being forklifted out to make room for WCDMA "upgrades".

      Whatever the future may be, it's certainly not "GSM" as we know it today.

    6. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by turbod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Read some radio manuals, and get back to us.

      Just because GSM is mandated to exist in most parts of the world does not mean it is either superior or will be in existance forever (or maybe it can if you want 2.5G forever).

      All future 3g standards are based on CDMA (UTMS,WCDMA, CDMA2K, etc.), if not direct decendents. Qualcomm owns most if not all patents on those technologies. Not only that, but a terrain as sparse as Iraq, should not use GSM, but CDMA.

      I live in the countryside of North Carolina, and I can tell you all about the GSM vs. CDMA arguments in living color. GSM blows in large geographical expanses with sparse populations. The companies don't want to provide the coverage that GSM requires (GSM requires dense repeater coverage), while CDMA requires many fewer towers for the same area. GSM isn't even an option, and those fancy AT&T phones are only worth their solder and discrete components to any outside-of-the-city dweller. Sprint PCS phones however, have full net capabilities, text paging, and digital clarity in the middle of nowhere.

      Now, MCI can backdate Iraq and put them on GSM if they want, but the truth of the matter is, the Iraqi people are getting ripped off. MCI is simply going to dump their GSM equipment they wanted to sell in the US market, on the Iraqis who currently have no choice. But its not the best network for Iraq. In fact, it sucks. It sucks so bad, I guarantee the venture will be basic failure except in the largest of cities in Iraq with the most income and highest population densities. The rest of Iraq will be left phoneless.

      TurboD

    7. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by shaggie · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GSM is far from dead. Maybe in the US, its dead, but then in most parts of the world its quite alive.

      Its all a matter of numbers. Asia and Europe have a much higher subscriber based and churn rate for cell phones than the US. Some numbers as of 2002.
      GSM subscribers in China: 160 million accounts
      CDMA subscribers in China: 500,000 accounts
      GSM subscribers in Indonesia: 9 million accounts
      CDMA subscribers in Indonesia: 50,000 accounts

      Given that with the exception of Japan and Korea the other countries in Asia are all using GSM, I really highly doubt GSM is gonna bite the dust. Pretty sure the user ratios situation is similar in Europe

      BTW the rate at which people buy new cell phones in Asia is quite close to Moore's Law. Most white-collared types in Asia get a new phone every 6-8 months.

      When i lived in NYC and Boston, I never saw the kind of cell phone churn rates nor ever saw evidence that cell phone usage is as pervalent as in Europe or Asia. Highly doubt any country comes close to China's 160 million GSM subscriber accounts.

      Far as I understand UTMS is a descendant or an evolution of GSM. When it comes to business, it all comes down to numbers, not which technology is better, how many units you can sell. Windows, VHS are just 2 examples of sub-par tech winning over due to sheer volume of sales alone.

      Pretty sure the US will be dominated by CDMA as for the rest of the world I'm hedging my bets on UTMS

    8. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by grungeKid · · Score: 1

      GSM upgrades easily to GPRS and GPRS-EDGE, which gives much of the 3G benefits, at a lower price.

      For 3G alternatives, see also UTMS.

    9. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah sure, go build you stupid cdma networks.

      Who wants to talk to Amerikkens anyway?

    10. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Steve+Christ · · Score: 1
      Warning Will Robinson! Brain Fade!

      The REST OF THE WORLD pretty much uses GSM. That's 95% of the population!

      Dead? Er.......no?

      Steve C.

    11. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not only that, but a terrain as sparse as Iraq, should not use GSM, but CDMA.

      Your arguments are perfectly valid technically, but completely loony when applied to the real world. The entire Middle East is already GSM. No matter how sparsley populated it is, that is the standard there. Why should Iraq become a little blob of CDMA in a sea of GSM? Its rediculous to think that they should.

      As for UTMS/WCDMA/CDMA2000 yeah, thats all well and good, and we all know the upgrade path from GSM to the 3G CDMA variants is a pain in the ass, but as far as I am aware there are no plans for any 3G networks in the Middle East and there is no demand for 3G services in the Middle East. What is the benefit of building a far more expensive network that no one needs?

    12. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1

      I am afraid you are misinformed. How GSM is performing in your neighborhood have a lot to do with the way your local operator have chosen to implement it. If you go to countries like South Africa, Australia, Norway etc., (Not all known for their population density) you will find that GSM nets in the country-side is set up so the cell-tower skips every second time-slot. That way you can use handsets up to 120 km from the base-station. Try that with IS-95 or CDMA2K :-).

      The situation in Iraq is very different from the old GSM-1900 nets in the States. At 1900 MHz, the cell-size is a lot smaller for both CDMA and GSM. The CDMA handsets were made to shift to the 800 MHz AMPS band when loosing coverage (Going analog). GSM have only recently been allowed in the analog band so with the new nets being build by AT&T and friends, the phones will get much better coverage also in rural areas due to the better propagation of lower frequency signals (And they will stay digital).

      If you follow 3GPP standardisation you will notice GSM 450. At 450 MHz your coverage in rural areas will be fantastic. Try building a WCDMA network with only 7 MHz of bandwidth though ;-).

      With EGPRS you can get bitrates of up to 384 kb/s in a moving vehicle. Try that with CDMA. :-)

    13. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by turbod · · Score: 1

      I am not aware of any implementation of EGPRS in my state, but of course, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. I travel routinely to the RTP area of NC though, and I have never heard of EGPRS, which would definitely popular among my friends. My guess is that EGPRS is a bit hard to implement "for real". When I searched on the net, I found only a pilot project by AT&T. Hardly proven technology like CDMA...

      Where are you getting your distance benchmarks for Is-95/CDMA2k? It doesn't really matter anyway, because even if you are a few more kilometers capable on GSM, GSM tower capacity will be exceeded. Even in sparsely populated 120km ranges, there will be more than enough callers to completely overload said infrastructure.

      TurboD

    14. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by turbod · · Score: 1

      "Even in sparsely populated 120km ranges, there will be more than enough callers to completely overload said infrastructure."

      I'd like to expand upon this comment. TDMA systems have frequency reuse by dividing the small piece of bandwidth they get by allocating small chunks of time on the same channel to the phones on a specific channel. As the number of callers increase, less slots are free for a new caller. At low frequencies, the number of channels are more limited, and therefore the number of slots in total per tower.

      What makes matters fun in a GSM system used for long distances, is that the speed of light becomes a problematic factor for those near the tower, and those far from the tower. The slots are equidistant, but the users are not. If a user at the max range attempts to dial from a nearly full tower, he can knock other people off the tower, or the tower may ignore him because he appears out of spec. CDMA doesn't suffer from that issue. CDMA does have its own issues at a distance, however, they are not insurmountable with variable power output RF amplifiers on the phone and base station, a much simpler solution than the software nightmare that TDMA could quickly become to handle the situation (which as I understand it, it is not handled. You get knocked, well thats too bad. Hope you weren't dying or anything during a busy period on the tower).

      TurboD

    15. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1

      120 km would only make sense in deserts etc., I mean *sparsely* populated areas, I agree. There are such places though and it is a good thing to be able to economically cover such areas if nothing else then for emergency calls when your camel blows a tire.

      Again much of the perception in the US that you need more basestations is the confusion between the cellular band and the PCS band. (Cellular: Tx 824-849 and Rx 869-894 and PCS: Tx 1850-1910 Rx 1930-1990) For the past years it have been so that GSM carriers in the US have only had PCS licenses while CDMA have beend deployed in both bands. The cellular frequencies have much better propagation properties so you have less attenaution and scattering from trees, buildings, hills etc. Only in the past year have operators started to roll out GSM in the Cellular band as well so now you should see wast coverage improvements in the US for GSM outside city centers.

      The speed of light is indeed a factor in any TDMA based system, also GSM. In GSM you have eight slots on the same frequency and you will receive in one slot, eg slot 0, and then transmit in slot 4. You have a guard-band between slots of 33 us or roughly 9.9 km. This is why in GSM the handset will use timing advance TA and initiate its transmission earlier, dependant on the distance to the basestation, in order for the slots from different handsets to reach the basestation equidistant. The basestation will report back to the handset when the timeslot was received and the handset must then adjust its timing advance as the user moves around in the cell or between cells.

      When you deploy GSM in deserts, at sea, in the mountains where the trick is getting coverage and not spectral efficiency, the basestation is configured to use only every second slot. This is to avoid an of-by-one error in the calculation of timing advance when the user first time turn on her handset.

      The same mechanism can be used in GSM to implement E911. (E911 is US legislation that mandates that the network operator must be able to locate the origin of an emergency call within (i think 50m)). The handset uses triangulation between neighbouring basestation, this is called E-OTD. In CDMA you have had to add a GPS receiver to the handset to acheive the same effect. While it is cool to have a build-in GPS receiver it adds cost to the handset and limits the flexibility in product concept selection because you need to find space for a GPS antenna.
      Also GPS do not work in-doors, in parking garages, tunnels or outside in forests or urban jungles since you need line-of sight to at least three sattelites.

      In GSM you use seperate channels for broadcasts of a request to send data (both from the handset and from the basestation) so you would not knock handsets involved in communication off the tower. You might get a collision if two handsets broad-cast a request to send (They are dialing a number or sending an SMS,MMS,E-mail etc) simultaniously. This is very similar to Ethernet. In that case the handsets will try again with a pseudo-random delay until the request is granted.
      When the request is granted, the base-station takes control and will mandate what slots a handset can use for transmission so there is no longer possibility of collission.

      I admit GSM is a very complex system but it is also solving a range of very complex problems.

      Building a communication system on CDMA or TDMA is a design choise. As our friend Shannon tells us there is no fundamental difference if the two systems are equally well designed. GSM is very well designed. I am not that familiar with the IS-95 family but it seems to be very much a proprietary system owned by one company and I fear that that can limit the scope of that standard.

    16. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1

      EGPRS is only being rolled out now. It was one of the reasons why AT&T abandoned their US-TDMA (IS-136) network for a GSM-based system (Apart from GSM infrastructure being a fraction of the cost of IS-136 due to economy of scale and competition).

      In EGPRS (or EDGE) you use 8-psk modulation rather than gmsk. In GMSK you gave two points in your constallation diagram where you have eight in 8-psk. Using two points you can transmit one bit pr symbol, with eight you can transmit three. It is very much the equivalent of the analog modems from years past. By adding more constallation points in the modulation diagram you went from 1200 b/s to 56k while still sending only 1200 symbols/s.

      8-PSK is the first step in this direction in GSM. 8-PSK have very much the same spectral mask as GMSK and can consequently co-exist in the network. The handset reports to the network which coding classes it supports and the network can then order the handset to use the most appropriate bandwidth depending on the quality of the channel.

      Technologically the big step in GSM was going from HSCSD (High Speed Circuit Switched Data) to GPRS since GPRS requires a totally different protocol stack that includes the concept of changing coding classes depending on the S/N ratio of the current channel. GPRS uses four different coding classes (Levels of feed-forward error correction added to the data payload) that spans from 9600 b/s pr slot to 21kb/s pr slot. If you use multiple slots you increase your data-rate. In EGPRS you add five additional coding classes using 8-psk modulation and you can then go from 9600 b/s pr slot to 63 kb/s pr slot. Again using multiple slots will linearily increase your bandwidth up to 384 kb/s which is what will fit in six ISDN channels.

      The operators might not be pushing EGPRS that hard right now but is that not more connected to the fact that most traffic in the US is still voice only? The operators dont really need higher datacapacity before SMS, MMS, online gaming, video clips etc starts to take off in the US.

      The handset manufacturers have also very little incentive to sell EGPRS handsets before the applications start to take off. This years killer app seems to be color displays. Why should the handset manufacturers put in not-requested features now that can drive next years replacement sales? Making the perfect product will make you loose all the replacement sales in the future ;-)

      I must admit I dont know that much about the theoretical max coverage of IS-95. Doing a back-of-the-envelope calculation based on the power control loop of IS-95 gives a theoretical limit below 100 km which is not that bad but there might be other things that limits the coverage furter.

      (The power control loop requires the handset to adjust its output power in 0.2 dB steps 1600 times pr second in order for the basestation to receive all handsets with equal strength. 1/1600 = 625 us corresponding to 188km. Since a loop require the signal to propagate from the base-station to the handset and for the changed output power to propagata back to the base-station we get a maximum distance of 94km. This would require the base-station to be able to meassure the received power in 0 us which could be tough so my guestimate for a maximum distance would be in the ball-park of 50 km.)

    17. Re:GSM is NOT the future... by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1
      I'd like to expand upon this comment. TDMA systems have frequency reuse by dividing the small piece of bandwidth they get by allocating small chunks of time on the same channel to the phones on a specific channel. As the number of callers increase, less slots are free for a new caller. At low frequencies, the number of channels are more limited, and therefore the number of slots in total per tower.

      In CDMA based systems handsets share the same frequency by transmitting a narrow-band signal that have been spread using a pseudo-random code shared between the handset and the base-station. For each frequency a certain number of codes can co-exist on the same frequency. (I think it is 64 codes for IS-95 in a 1.2 MHz wide channel but please dont shoot me if I am wrong, I have not been working with IS-95 the last few years) As such one can view CDMA as a form of analog frequency hopping. When you get close to the maximum number of users on a frequency, the signal to noise ratio at the receiver will approach the limit where the coding gain can no longer re-generate the signal.

      Conceptually there is no difference between TDMA and CDMA in that respect.

      The notion that there are fewer channels at lower frequencies is correct insofar as you have 2*25 MHz allocated in the cellular band and 2*60 MHz allocated in the PCS band. An operator will still only have a licence for say 10 MHz in either band so in that respect there are not more channels at higher frequencies.

  11. GSM/GPRS by yet+another+coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How much sooner than the United States will Iraq get a GSM/GPRS network? AT&T, T-Mobile and Cingular are taking their time. Maybe the Iraqi people will get affordable data plans, too.

    1. Re:GSM/GPRS by NoCoward · · Score: 1

      The U.S. already has a GSM/GPRS provider in T-Mobile. I use it every day.

    2. Re:GSM/GPRS by yet+another+coward · · Score: 1

      Have you looked at the T-Mobile coverage map? It is pitiful. Away from major highways and cities, coverage is absent. TDMA and CDMA coverage is much better. Some of the TDMA providers, Cingular and AT&T, gradually are rolling out GSM/GPRS, but their old networks are several times bigger and will be for years to come. T-Mobile provides cheap voice service to make up for their small network, but they still have expensive data plans except when pushing the Hiptop. Can a normal person afford GPRS, even if lucky enough to live in an area served by it?

    3. Re:GSM/GPRS by fafalone · · Score: 1

      I live in a small town miles from a big city, and the other night I was fishing out somewhere 5 miles from any building, let alone a city, and my T-Mobile coverage was fine. 6 months ago, your statement was accurate, but here in SW florida, coverage is improving quite rapidly. AT&T's GSM coverage is even better.

    4. Re:GSM/GPRS by RzUpAnmsCwrds · · Score: 1

      How about unlimited 144kbit/sec data?

      That's what Sprint offers.

      They use CDMA.

    5. Re:GSM/GPRS by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1
      How much sooner than the United States will Iraq get a GSM/GPRS network? AT&T, T-Mobile and Cingular are taking their time. Maybe the Iraqi people will get affordable data plans, too.

      It already has GSM operators; I wouldn't be too eager to make that move, though: GSM's encryption is a joke. Info about the weaker algorithm from a crypto list here; the followup post from John Gilmore about breaking the stronger of the two. Basically: GSM is half a step above ROT-13 - burn it!

      The great irony, of course, is that when Iraq comes to upgrade to 3G, they'll almost certainly be upgrading to a CDMA variant anyway, unless they go with the TDMA derivative... (Article on the subject here.)

      From here, GSM vs CDMA looks a lot like VHS vs Betamax: the inferior standard (at least in security) is much more common. Let's hope operators take the opportunity to move to the (3G) W-CDMA, which is backwards compatible with GSM as well...

    6. Re:GSM/GPRS by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1

      Hmm.,

      2^45 tries as reported by Adi is a little steep to listen in on your kid sisters talk with her boy-friend. If you really need to sample two minutes conversation and pre-process it to 200 GB of data before starting the attack - Well in comparison with the cellular networks prevalent in the US I dont think that is that bad. How is CDMA2K voice data encrypted??

      The encryption algorithm dates back to the bad old days with an iron curtain dividing Europe. The French did not want Poles, Hungarians etc. to use a system that was un-breakable and in that sence I would still say that it is slightly above ROT13. The CDMA2K systems being sold to China, what encryption do they use??

      I would still say that if I was interested in eavesdropping on somebody using GSM I would much rather go for tapping into the infrastructure than go for the encrypted data being transmitted over the air.

      If you have some reason to want greater safety then what can be acheived by the over-the-air GSM speach encryption I would suggest you make a circuit switched data call instead, use any old VoIP solution and tripple-DES the whole lot.

      BTW., The TDMA derivative being discussed in the article is EDGE which is a GSM air interface using 8-PSK modulation rather than GMSK for signalling and thus acheiving 3 times the bit-rate using approximately the same spectral mask. With EDGE you get 384 kb/s also in TU50 and similar fading profiles. Try that with CDMA :-)

    7. Re:GSM/GPRS by Cyberdyne · · Score: 1
      2^45 tries as reported by Adi is a little steep to listen in on your kid sisters talk with her boy-friend. If you really need to sample two minutes conversation and pre-process it to 200 GB of data before starting the attack - Well in comparison with the cellular networks prevalent in the US I dont think that is that bad.

      IMO, that's a pretty trivial attack - a normal PC and a single fairly large IDE hard drive? Also, remember the crypto is used for more than just call privacy...

      How is CDMA2K voice data encrypted??

      AES (Rijndael). Good luck breaking that with a $1000 PC this century...

      I would still say that if I was interested in eavesdropping on somebody using GSM I would much rather go for tapping into the infrastructure than go for the encrypted data being transmitted over the air.

      Not practical: far higher risk for lower reward than simply sniffing some radio signals, feeding them into a PC and waiting a very short time. By the time you've found the right fibre to tap, I've already got the crypto key - and without leaving any traces I ever tried. You, meanwhile, were caught apparently trying to sabotage the telephone network, and have a lot of awkward questions to answer from some people in uniform.

      If you have some reason to want greater safety then what can be acheived by the over-the-air GSM speach encryption I would suggest you make a circuit switched data call instead, use any old VoIP solution and tripple-DES the whole lot.

      I'd use AES (as CDMA does) or possibly Serpent (since the main developer was my old supervisor). I wouldn't try either variant of A5, that's for sure ;-)

    8. Re:GSM/GPRS by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1

      > Also, remember the crypto is used for more than just call privacy...

      ?? Like what? Billing, authentication, exchange of session keys etc is done using IMSI and Ki and a protocol of your operators choise. Some operators are still using comp128 which I admit is a little silly but it is not something you can break over the air. Remember the comp128 equivalent is a hash function and not a block cipher so guessing one session key will not get you the secret. Even using the *Broken* comp128 you will need something like 100000 chosen plain-texts to get Ki.

      Even if you did get the Ki, it was not like you would have free POTS forever. Operators have a sad habit of harassing you big time if they see your IMSI/Ki being used by multiple handsets.

      > I'd use AES (as CDMA does) or possibly Serpent (since the main developer was my old supervisor). I wouldn't try either variant of A5, that's for sure ;-)

      Are you sure CDMA is using AES? Rijndael is a fairly new algorithm and CDMA have been around for a while. (It might be that CDMA2K is using it but IS95, I doubt it)

      The GSM protocol is very modular. I dont se any reason not to improve the session encryption if that becomes relevant. You allready have multiple speach-codecs, multiple modulation schemes whatever being introduced in new versions of the GSM specification. Normally 3GPP releases a new spec with up-dated requirements once a year. This will then contain added features and added type approval requirements. Business as usual.

      > IMO, that's a pretty trivial attack - a normal PC and a single fairly large IDE hard drive?

      Hmm., I would still find it easier to wiretab the landline phone the guy is talking to. Sampling two minutes worth of communication without knowing the key is no simple task (Not that I would claim it cannot be done though).

      I assume you want the attack to go something like walking up next to a guy, seeing him pick up his phone and wanting to hear what the guy at the other end is telling him.

      The handset will use one of the session keys it have been sent from the local network at start encrypted with the Ki of the SIM-card. I assume it is this session key you want to get at in order to be able to eavesdrop on the rest of the conversation.

      First challenge is to figure out what channel your subject is receiving on. The system is using frequency hopping, one burst of 4xx us before hopping to the next. What list of frequencies the handset is using depends on the RSSI measurements the handset continuesly sends the basestation. The basestation will also move the call to a neighbouring basestation for better capacity allocation if one cell gets crowded or if the handset is reporting more fawourable reception from one of the neighbouring cells. This happens all the time in an urban environment, especially since people are moving around. One way around this is of course to sample everything and then later figure out which bursts were the ones you were interested in. In Europe there is 110 MHz allocated to GSM, 110 RX and 110 TX. Each frequency is 200 KHz wide and each channel will typically need sampling with a 14 bit A/D converter 13/12 million times a second. (This is assuming your receiver have individual AGC control on each channel and that you can somehow guess the power level the basestation will transmit every burst with). Catching both RX and TX will yield 16.7 Gb/s in raw data.
      Then you have to demodulate the data with all the trickery of equalization, correlation/timing adjustment, viterbi decoding etc etc. before you get to the encrypted data being sent on the individual channels. Then you have to figure out which bursts are from your victim before you can do the pre-processing that makes 2 minutes worth of data into 200GB data for the attack.

      While I would not claim that security by obscurity is that great, I will at least claim that this is pretty obscure ;-). Whoever can affort such a receiver (read a government agency) will anyway have a tab on the network side of the infra-structure.

    9. Re:GSM/GPRS by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1

      I forgot to add that you want to build your receiver with receiever diversity. While your victim will report received signal strength back to the basestation which in turn will adjust its transmitted power as low as possible, you will not get the same benefit. The wavelength is 15-30 cm so you will often end up in a fading hole. While the frequency hopping should help with fast fading it will not be a big help in slow fading.

      You will also need to keep wery close to your victim since frequencies will be re-used without mercy. While your victim will be able to decode a burst received with a 10dB S/N, you could be in trouble if you hear a neighbouring transmitter that is closer to you than it is to the victim.

      In CDMA this is not a big issue since a disturbing signal will use a different code. This will not help you in GSM.

    10. Re:GSM/GPRS by Tjp($)pjT · · Score: 1

      Maybe the Iraqi people will get affordable data plans, too.

      Then Sprint PCS should have won. PCS Vision with all-you-can-eat data is only $10 over the voice plan you attach it too. And it is a widely deployed (mostly urban/suburban and major highway corridors nationwide) CDMA system. Pretty sweet deal.

      --
      - Tjp

      I am in wallow with my inner money grubbing capitalistic pig. ... Oink!

    11. Re:GSM/GPRS by yet+another+coward · · Score: 1

      I'm glad you brought up Sprint.

      When are the Sony-Ericsson phones arriving? I read Q2 not too long ago, but never exactly when. The T608 might lead me to switch if it delivers. A 3/2.5G phone that can also serve as a gateway for a laptop or PDA via Bluetooth has great promise.

  12. The sad thing about the geek kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Is that so many other geeks find him pitiful. If his self-esteem wasn't low already...

    1. Re:The sad thing about the geek kid by cjackson0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I consider myself somewhat an average geek and don't find him pitiful. Who hasn't grabbed a stick and pretended they were Darth Maul or any other Jedi badass? I laugh when I saw this because I was laughing at myself. I could have done the exact same thing and looked just as stupid. If it weren't for some kid at school who found the tape and posted it online this would be just another idiotic teenage fantasy that we've all lived in some form or another. I think the kid should be proud that he is now world renown and maybe gave a little chuckle to a bunch of nerds JUST LIKE HIM.

    2. Re:The sad thing about the geek kid by PudriK · · Score: 1

      After the initial onslaught of hypocritcal geeks, most posts to waxy.org were supportive. Those who made fun of the kid were quickly flamed away.

    3. Re:The sad thing about the geek kid by fsmunoz · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not only that, the kid that stole the video is the one to pity; being a snitch and abusing the confidence of friends just to gain a few laughs and popularity is one of the worst personality traits one can have.

    4. Re:The sad thing about the geek kid by Steve+Christ · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Of course you were King Cool from the day you were born and never ever sang into a hairbrush or deodorant can, played a tennis racket or baseball bat or practised dance steps alone - no doubt looking fooolish in all three cases.

      You're either self-delucsional or a liar. Either way round you've no cred with me.

      And you've not got the balls to post under your real name.

      S.

    5. Re:The sad thing about the geek kid by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If it's such an undesireable trait, then why do we keep electing them to office?

    6. Re:The sad thing about the geek kid by FatalTourist · · Score: 1

      In a show of solidarity I shall now change my sig.

      --


      Escape Pod Films: Sketch Comedy and Web Series
  13. A good thing for GSM? by z4ce · · Score: 4, Interesting

    No,
    It's not a good thing for Iraq for GSM to be implemented. GSM is really aging. The only way to get even moderately high-speeds is using the piggy-back GPRS. Reconstructing GSM to be 3G is very difficult transition path. If it weren't for Quallcom's patents on CDMA, nobody would be using GSM which is based on TDMA.

    I really like some of the stuff GSM has done with respect to the phones themselves, such as the use SIMM card for storing the phones information. But CDMA is by far the technically superior solution, however patent incumbered. Building an infrastructure from the ground up on TDMA technology is just brain-dead politics.

    1. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Good point; maybe they should be building a 3G EDGE network instead. IIRC, EDGE is GSM, but it uses CDMA instead of TDMA for better spectrum efficiency.

    2. Re:A good thing for GSM? by GlassHeart · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If it weren't for Quallcom's patents on CDMA, nobody would be using GSM which is based on TDMA.

      This is not wholly accurate. TDMA is old, obvious, and proven technology, requiring nothing more complicated than a uniform source of timing, and is possibly less demanding on the handset hardware than CDMA. Telecommunications carriers tend to be conservative, because the upfront investments are astronomical.

      Secondly, according to Qualcomm's own information, CDMA by 1995 offered only 10x improvement (over analog cellular) of the bandwidth utilization. By contrast, TDMA offers somewhere from 3x to 8x, so the case for ripping out all your expensive network hardware is not as compelling back then.

      Today in Iraq, starting from scratch, the equation is obviously different. When GSM's time comes, however, it should be remembered as a reliable workhorse, not something that was always inferior to CDMA except for patents. GSM was the first mobile phone system that offered global roaming, a feature taken for granted today, but causing so many problems back then that several horribly expensive satellite based solutions were built.

      SIMM card

      Only one "M". It stands for "Subscriber Identity Module".

    3. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Fabio+Dias · · Score: 1
      But CDMA is by far the technically superior solution, however patent incumbered. Building an infrastructure from the ground up on TDMA technology is just brain-dead politics.

      But going through the hassle of designing a brand new image file format (PNG) because GIFs are patent encumbered is just fine?

    4. Re:A good thing for GSM? by natmsincome.com · · Score: 1

      Hmm,
      Your missing the point. Your using the same argument that they used for X86 vs ALPHA/RISC etc. The point that the technology is better is only half the story. I say that your posting from an x86 box ever though it's not the technically superior solution.

      The other half of the story is everything around the technology. Here's the real world reasons why it's stupid for them to use CDMA instead of GSM:
      *All the countries around it use GSM. This means that you couldn't use the same phone (excluing tri band phones) as you went from Iraq to Israel or Iran or Syria etc.
      *There are only two countries that use CDMA - America and Koria. Your saying that they should be incompatable with 90% of the world just so YOU and the other American soldiers can use their phones in Iraq????
      *CDMA phones cost more.
      *CDMA phones use older technology because they don't have the competition the GSM phones have. Look at the advances in speed for the x86 compared to ALPHA. Sure CDMA get's it eventually but most of the time it's after GSM, it cost more and it not as polished.

      If you get nothing else don't forget that technology is only half of the equation.

      Nathaniel Brown

    5. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Verne · · Score: 1

      Only one "M". It stands for "Subscriber Identity Module".

      How do you feel about people who say "PIN Number"... ;)

      --


      There are only two things in this world that smell like fish. And one of them's fish...
    6. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Fafhrd · · Score: 1

      There are only two countries that use CDMA - America and Koria.

      Well, I live in Brazil, and my mobile phone uses CDMA; and I'm told there are CDMA networks in other countries in South America.

      However, your points stand, as global roaming for CDMA phones is pitiful indeed, especially compared to GSM. And one thing that irritates me is how many features GSM phones have that CDMA phones don't even dream of having...

    7. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Cato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      EDGE isn't CDMA based, it's still TDMA but with better radio technology allowing more capacity in existing GSM/GPRS cells, and higher speeds.

      W-CDMA is the 'true 3G' step after GPRS/EDGE, which is CDMA based.

    8. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The thing is, it's waaay too earlier for Iraq to be worrying about 3G. Technically, CDMA is superior. But right now they just need to take things one step at a time.

    9. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Wesley+Felter · · Score: 1

      Ah thanks; I can't keep all those systems straight.

    10. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Only one "M". It stands for "Subscriber Identity Module".

      > How do you feel about people who say "PIN Number"... ;)


      ...while at the same time insisting that "GNU's Not Unix" makes perfect sense.

    11. Re:A good thing for GSM? by Sigurd_Fafnersbane · · Score: 1

      CDMA vs TDMA holy wars are a lot of hot air.

      Using either is a design choice and you can make good or bad systems with both. In both methods you are bound by the limits Shannon discovered, but any well-designed system can be made to have the same data capacity in a given channel independantly of the access method.

      Qualcomm made some wild claims about their superior technology and since mobile phone operators are not among the worlds brightest people (Remember the 3G spectrum auctions in Europe) a lot of US operators bought it. They are now locked in with a proprietary standard bogged down by bogus QCOM IP claims. (Remember QCOM owns the protocol, every time they make a protocol extension thay patent it for its application in their system no matter how trivial).

      I still find the idea of overlaying digital CDMA channels over AMPS channels and hide the digital traffic in the analog noisefloor quite cute. That such an implementation only makes sence in the rather fragmented US mobile phone eco-system is an other matter.

  14. GSM vs CDMA by jbf · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Yes, GSM is more widely supported than CDMA, but note that the GSM folks are having a heck of a time providing 3G support, whereas the two big CDMA providers in the states (Verizon and Sprint) have both rolled out huge 3G networks. The reason for this is that 1xRTT is a better standard for data. By contrast, DoCoMo is losing money hand over fist deploying WCDMA.

    GSM is everywhere largely because of European licensing agencies requiring GSM, and those same restrictions are built into the licenses for 3G spectrum (with UMTS). NOT because GSM is a better technology. CDMA gets better efficiency (more users per channel per cell) than GSM, especially in lightly loaded areas.

    I don't see why GSM-everywhere is so desirable. The conveinences everyone claims that GSM has (eg SIM cards) are already being standardized in cdma2000, and will be here soon. GSM is a beast from the past, pushed only by government regulations. For those who say AT&T's switch shows that GSM is the future, remember that AT&T is switching from a TDMA network that's technologically equivalent to GSM (and hence inferior to CDMA), and that AT&T is having all sorts of network problems as a result, since they have to hard-block their frequencies, effectively creating a huge fragmentation problem.

    1. Re:GSM vs CDMA by rasteri · · Score: 5, Interesting

      You're forgetting one thing (and it's possibly the most important)... implementing CDMA in Iraq would effectively kill roaming between it and nearby countries. I think that's a significant enough reason to warrant a GSM mobile network. Besides, the so called "advantages" of CDMA are useless to Iraqis (High data rates? Most people in Iraq don't even have a computer, let alone a portable one). GSM offers some unique features (such as SIM cards) which almost certainly would be useful. Just because a technology is technically better in the US doesn't neccesarily mean it's well suited for a completely different country.

    2. Re:GSM vs CDMA by rasteri · · Score: 1
      are already being standardized in cdma2000
      "Being" is the operative word here. CDMA2000 is a new, relatively unproven non-standard (at the time of speaking) whereas GSM is a reliable, proven standard, used in most parts of the world. GSM equipment is far more widespread and easily available, and the phones are cheaper. It just makes more sense for Iraq to implement GSM.
    3. Re:GSM vs CDMA by donutello · · Score: 1

      You're forgetting one thing (and it's possibly the most important)... implementing CDMA in Iraq would effectively kill roaming between it and nearby countries.

      Yep, that's right. And that's the reason they're going with GSM there. But the parent is merely pointing out that while it might be the correct solution to use here, GSM is not technologically superior to CDMA in any way.

      Most people in Iraq don't even have a computer, let alone a portable one).

      But I believe the point is that they will soon have those once their oil revenue is used for their benefit.

      --
      Mmmm.. Donuts
    4. Re:GSM vs CDMA by Inoshiro · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The conveinences everyone claims that GSM has (eg SIM cards) are already being standardized in cdma2000, and will be here soon. "

      Yea, because consumers have always waited for the perfect technology, rather than adopting a marginally worse technology that exists today.

      Oh, wait, VHS was before Betamax and was worse. Oh, wait, the PC was before the Macintosh and had less usability. Oh, wait ..

      I can go on and on. If CDMA was truly better enough today, it would've been standardized in every aspect like GSM, and we wouldn't even know about GSM because of it.

      --
      --
      Internet Explorer (n): Another bug -- that is, a feature that can't be turned off -- in Windows.
    5. Re:GSM vs CDMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If CDMA was truly better enough today, it would've been standardized in every aspect like GSM, and we wouldn't even know about GSM because of it

      Well then, if GSM is so much better, how come we still know about CDMA? I think your logic is flawed.

    6. Re:GSM vs CDMA by farnz · · Score: 1
      I feel like ranting here, so just ignore me; the reason GSM was mandated (rather than leaving the market to decide) was to facilitate competition. Likewise with UMTS (which is a CDMA system, incidentally - my NEC e606 even uses Qualcomm's patents).

      The idea is that handsets are expensive, but SIM cards are cheap (I can buy a prepay SIM for £5, but SIM-free handsets are at least £100). Given a guarantee that all phones of a given generation take the same SIM type (so all 2G SIMs are equivalent to the handset, and all 3G SIMs are equivalent to the handset), I can get a handset I like, and then purchase a SIM for the network I want; if I dislike the handset, I can buy a new one without hassling the network, and if I dislike the service, I can buy a new SIM cheaply.

      Of course, it hasn't quite worked out like this; cheap calls tend to be tied to both handset purchase and long term commitment. The only benefit left is SIM swapping; I can have one SIM card for each network in each country I travel within, and swap SIMs to give me the best coverage and cheap calls.

    7. Re:GSM vs CDMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1xRTT is not 3g dude. It's at best 2.5, same as GPRS.
      You've been reading the BS on the back of sprint phones too much.

    8. Re:GSM vs CDMA by mgs1000 · · Score: 1
      The main reason ATT switched from TDMA to GSM is because GSM has more timeslots per frequency compared to TDMA. It's a lot cheaper to buy a base station than can cram more calls per freqency than actually putting up new towers.

      CDMA2000 networks are also a heck of a lot easier to deploy than WCDMA ones, since CDMA2000 base stations are backward compatable with CDMA(IS-95) phones, and vice versa. To deploy WCMA, which is not backward compatibale with GSM, an operator has to either use new frequencies (not exactly cheap), or use their currently-used-by-GSM frequencies. (and reduce the capacity for people with legacy phones)

      That's why you soon see a lot of GSM carriers going with EDGE in the near future, which should have better data rates than CDMA1X. (on paper, once you get in the field, all bets are off)

    9. Re:GSM vs CDMA by Oscar_Wilde · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll try to keep this brief.

      Even if CDMA is technically a better system its still not the one in use by the majority of the worlds population.

      And while you might get better data rates using CDMA but GSM users still get all the cool phones to make use of it. Well ok, not all of the cool phones are GSM but if you've even been to Japan, Europe, Australia, etc you'd have to have seen the equipment everyone was using.

      My family in the US think its odd that everyone in my family here (in Oz) has a mobile phone.

    10. Re:GSM vs CDMA by geekoid · · Score: 1

      "CDMA are useless to Iraqis"
      For now, but wouldn't it be better to prepare for the future?

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    11. Re:GSM vs CDMA by Cato · · Score: 2, Insightful

      GSM has something like 80% market share world-wide, and is heavily used in the Middle East as well as Africa, Europe, Asia and has some market share in North and South America. So the real reason it's desirable is that it's the standard, just like VHS, not that it has the best possible technology. CDMA2000 should be compared with W-CDMA, where it looks like the former is much more mature and currently deployable.

    12. Re:GSM vs CDMA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For now, but wouldn't it be better to prepare for the future?

      No. Why build an expensive CDMA network now that isn't going to be used for 5 years. What is Iraq going to do in the meantime, while they wait for their network to become usable?

      GSM is a real world, here and now standard that is cheap to implement and cheap to use. Iraqis can afford GSM handsets, and do not need the technological advantages offered by the 3G CDMA networks. You won't see any real roleout of 3G networks in the Middle East for a long time, either.

    13. Re:GSM vs CDMA by mark2003 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that anyone outside of Japan, or Italy and the UK has rolled out true 3g networks.

      I imagine that you are talking about 2.5g services which are claimed as 3g by many operators.

      Incidently the upgrade path from CDMA is to CDMA2000 with a bandwidth of 144kbs vs. the 384kps-2mps of UMTS. UMTS is definately the superior 3g technology and only one company has rolled it out so far and we definately have not rolled it out in the states. I would like to see Sprint or Verizon offer the peer to peer mobile video that we offer.

    14. Re:GSM vs CDMA by aallan · · Score: 1

      Yes, GSM is more widely supported than CDMA, but note that the GSM folks are having a heck of a time providing 3G support, whereas the two big CDMA providers in the states (Verizon and Sprint) have both rolled out huge 3G networks.

      What you're missing is that what the CDMA carriers are calling 3G actually isn't. In Europe we call it 2.5G, and all our networks have already rolled out phones that handle that sort of stuff, the fact that the US carriers haven't just means that (as usual) they're behind the curve.

      If you want a look at real 3G network, the first UK one just rolled out, see three.co.uk. The most obvious feature that doesn't turn up under 2.5G is real person to person video calling, quality seems to be fairly good as well.

      Al.
      --
      The Daily ACK - Eclectic posts by yet another hacker
  15. Where can I get one? by Tyrdium · · Score: 2, Funny

    I didn't mean to sound like I regretted my AiBook purchase in the last post, and now I even happier Sweet! Can't wait to get my hands on one... Wonder how much they are...

  16. I think I'll release... by MoThugz · · Score: 5, Interesting

    a video of myself doing some Neo-esque bullet-dodging kunf-fu moves... maybe I'll get an iPod too.

    All joking aside, from the interview, Ghyslain (the starwars kid) acted quite mature for someone his age... aware that his not-meant-for-public-viewing is now world famous he chose not to be bitter or overly proud of this. He seems to just let it pass as a page in his life story.

    Anyway, he did make me laugh, and what a way to start what is anticipated to be a loooong busy day.

    Thanks Ghyslain!

    1. Re:I think I'll release... by tbmaddux · · Score: 5, Interesting
      He seems to just let it pass as a page in his life story.
      Exactly. He's got much more embarassing/humiliating things to go through when he gets shoved into a cubicle. For now, his reaction was much the same as Ellen Feiss: "Oh, whatever, I think it's kind of funny. These people don't have lives..." They're kids. The fact that they get this flash-in-the-pan fame says more about us than them.
      --
      Can't you see that everyone is buying station wagons?
    2. Re:I think I'll release... by DocDendrite · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What amazes me is how much commentary this video contains about adolescent life.

      The remixed version is hilarious (as pointed out ad naseum) but take a look at the unedited cut. The last few frames are from the next event recorded on the tape - the school basketball game. Those players completely dwarf the Star Wars Kid.

      Juxtaposed with this geeky boy pretending to be a fearsome martial arts master says a lot about what life is like in highschool. If you're not the fastest, strongest, most athletic than what could you have to offer the community? The basketball game was carefully recorded - it's supposed to be seen again. With that to compete with how can anyone be surprised at this boy's fantasy? It's just a reminder of what a strange set of priorities society emphasizes to it's youth.

      Now this is quite an extrapolation on my part but I think a just one - and all this was serendipitously caught on tape! I, for one, am glad the Star Wars Kid will be walking away from the experience with more than a little coin for his anguish.

      -DD

    3. Re:I think I'll release... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      shut up

  17. Star Wars Kid by R33MSpec · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Come on guys, pitch in and buy this kid an iPod and other stuff for his efforts! What a star!

    1. Re:Star Wars Kid by agrippa_cash · · Score: 2, Funny

      I really think thats what he was angling for. Either that or a whole mac system. Not that I can blame him. If I had to be embarrassed like that I'd try to cash in too. Maybe a Fox reality special= Ghyslain: CONFIDENTIAL!

    2. Re:Star Wars Kid by muzzmac · · Score: 1

      The kids a legend. I want to see him with nunchaku!

    3. Re:Star Wars Kid by quantum+bit · · Score: 1

      The kids a legend. I want to see him with nunchaku! ...or sword-chucks...

    4. Re:Star Wars Kid by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
      Something tells me that "Anonymous ($500.00!!! [donation])" was once a portly, awkward teenager himself...

      That's some crazy shit... $3729 and counting. Once the Slashdot crowd are finished he'll have a new Dual 1.42 Ghz G4, 30 Gig iPod and a 23" Cinema Display. Kuh-rist.

  18. Re:This should silence Iraqi reconstruction critic by Soulfarmer · · Score: 1

    The win or lose situation has nothing to do with US self-bias. If CDMA had won, it would of course prove that fact, but losing does not prove that US is not maybe the most self-biased country on this ball of people.

    --
    -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
  19. Completely detached.... by tcc · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Am I the only one who was completely detached of that last buffy episode? well actually from the last 2 seasons? She could have died and I don't think it would have cared less... I was almost worried that she would die and Faith replace her for another stagnating 5 seasons....

    I'm sure I am not the only one who was continuing to watch it because he "invested time into watching the 5 previous seasons that were really cool and I need to know how it will all end"... the ending of season 5 when she closes the portal by jumping into it was like...at least 10x better than yesterday's serie ending.... Its a good thing that this show finally ends eventho I was a big fan the 5 first seasons. When I see shows like family guy, B5 crusade and firefly being cancelled and see crap like this season's of buffy still on, it makes me wonder.

    Now I just hope the Angel show doesn't go the same way.

    One show that I really enjoyed this year was John Doe, is there a second season of this? this is probably one of the good findings this year, new actors good story, just enough "fiction" to keep it "real", I like the balance and the general concept.

    --
    --- Metamoderating abusive downgraders since my 300th post.
    1. Re:Completely detached.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh christ you can't be serious. John Doe??! That is the most god-awful bastardization of a science fiction show ever conceived by the likes of man. I'd rather watch CleoPatra 2525 with thumbscrews attached to my genetalia tightened every time a bare midriff is shown. John Doe. Even the thought of it makes me want to retch. I don't know where to start: bad acting, ridiculous plots, laughable science, dues ex machina, I could go on. I was absolutely astounded when FireFly got cancelled and the absolute mind-raping garbage that is John Doe stayed on the air.

    2. Re:Completely detached.... by cvas · · Score: 2, Informative

      Then I guess you'll be happy to know that John Doe was not picked up for a second season.

    3. Re:Completely detached.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Any shred of credibility you might have had fled the second you plugged John Doe. I can not think of a more wretched piece of attempted television in recent history. Please consider a taste transplant.

    4. Re: Completely detached.... by Black+Parrot · · Score: 2, Insightful


      > I was absolutely astounded when FireFly got cancelled and the absolute mind-raping garbage that is John Doe stayed on the air.

      But at least it gives you some insight into why the RIAA is publishing what it does these days.

      For some, Sturgeon's Law isn't an observation, it's a marketing plan. Crap draws bigger audiences than stuff that challenges people.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
    5. Re:Completely detached.... by redjazz · · Score: 1

      Are we really naive enough to believe that final episodes are a miraculous summation of artistic talent?

      Take them for what they really are, lame ducks on their way out.

      Sure, sometimes they'll surprise you by releasing a few prisoners, sometimes they'll bore you and simply sit around staring through a window of their own past, and sometimes, if your lucky, once in a while, they'll try something fresh with an intern, but regardless, in the end...and from any angle, they are simply lame ducks.

    6. Re:Completely detached.... by DeepBlueDiver · · Score: 1
      Are we really naive enough to believe that final episodes are a miraculous summation of artistic talent?

      Babylon 5 final was the best one i've ever seen. Ofc, B5 was different in every aspect.
    7. Re:Completely detached.... by Obiwan+Kenobi · · Score: 1

      One show that I really enjoyed this year was John Doe, is there a second season of this? this is probably one of the good findings this year, new actors good story, just enough "fiction" to keep it "real", I like the balance and the general concept.

      When Fox released their fall schedule for 2003, John Doe wasn't on it.

      Thankfully, neither was Fastlane.

      Just FYI.

    8. Re:Completely detached.... by Syberghost · · Score: 1

      She could have died and I don't think it would have cared less...

      Dude, where have you been? She's already dead.

  20. DirecTV security through obscurity? by Samir+Gupta · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If their encryption algorithm is really so secure and uncompromisable as they claim, they should have no qualms about letting the details out in public (where they could be presumably subject to peer review), just as is standard practice with other crypto algorithms and the crypto community.

    --
    -- Samir Gupta, Ph. D. Head, New Technology Research Group, Nintendo Co. Ltd., Kyoto, Japan.
    1. Re:DirecTV security through obscurity? by shird · · Score: 4, Informative

      In theory. However, similar to DVDs, the decoder needs to be able to decode the signal. This means there must be a 'key' (be it an RSA key, secret algorithm, or whatever) in the device somewhere. Basically they are trying to achieve client-side security, which is just a myth. The only way to partially achieve this is to hide the key in silicon and hope the attackers don't find it, and when/if they do, change it. So as far as security is concerned, DirecTV is relying on secrecy - which is the only security possible in their situation. So it is fair enough they wouldnt want the details out in public.

      --
      I.O.U One Sig.
    2. Re:DirecTV security through obscurity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "they should have no qualms about letting the details out in public"
      Well, speaking as an anonymous satellite ex-hacker, I will say this: DirecTV is the most notoriously compromised satellite tv company in the world. Their "secrets" have been reverse-engineered multiple times (probably by unrelated groups that were not aware of each other) over the last nine years. News Datacom is really supposed to have dropped the ball in this respect with their smart-card "Conditional Access Modules." The big stink in the lawsuit were allegations that NDS paid to have smart-cards of rival CAM provider Nagravision cracked (which seem to have been much more resistant to it than their own cards).

      Regarding algorithms, I don't know what NDS uses, but Nagravision (this is where I think DirecTV is buying their smart-cards from now) seems to use DES (reversing the byte order, which threw off the hackers... for a couple of weeks) for decoding the video encryption keys (the whole system rests on the fact that the main video processor can't decrypt the video-signal keys directly, and has to send them off to the smart-card), and some form of public-key encryption for actually modifying the contents (subscription information) of the smart card. I think the latter has been cracked by now as well.

      Of course, since the video-key encryption algorithm was discovered before the process of writing the smart cards, people just built black-box emulators to bypass the whole thing. Right now, the smart-cards (in case of Nagravision, various ST models from Thomson) are too slow to do public-key encryption for the video-keys (which happens at least every channel change), but in a couple of years they will most certainly will.

    3. Re:DirecTV security through obscurity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      actually, the conditional access system uses a public key system for just that reason... packets are sent to the card, which tell it to do things; like give you certain channels, etc. but the packets need to be signed or the card will not accept them. dtv holds the private key, and the card has the public key. now we know everything about the (current) access card, including code, but that doesnt let us sign a packet to be sent to the card because we dont have the private key, so instead we need to introduce faults (power and clock glitching) to access the card.

      the real reason why dtv doesnt publish or talk about any aspect of their cards is because they do not want to give any clues about the internal sturcture of the cards for fear that they will be reverse engineered more easily.

    4. Re:DirecTV security through obscurity? by alexo · · Score: 1

      > Basically they are trying to achieve client-side security, which is just a myth.

      If it is just a myth, why is that nobody managed to get a stable DTV decoder (one that does not send you scampering for new code whenever they ECM your card to the black (grey?) market?

  21. Ugliest Jedi ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny
    He makes Yoda look like a stud.

    I mean, I know he's French, but jeez...

    1. Re:Ugliest Jedi ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think Andy Dick (in an MTV parody) might have him beat.

    2. Re:Ugliest Jedi ever? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Who modded this guy down as a troll? If anything, that kid should be given the -1 Troll!

      BTW, am I the only person who saw the bit where he hit himself on the back with his "light sabre"? Wow, that's gotta hurt.

  22. Re: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Re:

  23. Re: by PukkaStoryTeller · · Score: 1

    This is all very interesting.

  24. DirecTV's security blunder by Ryu2 · · Score: 1

    Reading the SecurityFocus article and the PDF affidavit, one wonders why did DirecTV have to print out in hard copy documents to give to the law firm when they would have just been OCRed again back into digital form. Why not just give encrypted files on CD-ROM directly to the law firm?

    Insert dumb lawyer joke here...

    --
    There's 10 types of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't.
    1. Re:DirecTV's security blunder by E-Rock · · Score: 2, Interesting

      INAL, but I have been involved in court cases. You don't go out of your way to make life easy on the opposition. In fact you go out of your way (within legal limits) to make like difficult for them. Drowning your opponent in paper is the most fun response to a fishing, I mean discovery, request that there is. Often there will be damning information down in there, but they never bother to actually go thru it all to find it.

  25. Stars Wars Kid by Ignorant+Aardvark · · Score: 0, Troll

    Oh my God that thing was HILARIOUS! To anyone who hasn't seen it, you must see it right now. The total download is only about 4 megs. Watch the original first and then the remix. You can download it with BitTorrent at http://www.fdntech.com/files/

    That guy's like looking at a train wreck. You know you shouldn't be enjoying it so much but you simply can't stop looking.

  26. Relevency of Buffy by SamMichaels · · Score: 3, Funny

    Since the last posting about Buffy, I've had to look no further than my own computer area to figure out how it's relevent to Slashdot.

    Doesn't every nerd have a huge poster of Sarah Michelle Gellar next to their Matrix poster? :)

    1. Re:Relevency of Buffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Does that mean I'm not a nerd? Thank fuck for that, no longer will people assume I'm interested in Star Trek, or Role-Playing Games, or...

    2. Re:Relevency of Buffy by Tassach · · Score: 1

      Ah, that would that be the Anarexics Anonymous poster, SMG being thier poster child (along with Callista Flockhart). Who needs a poster of Sarah Michelle Stickgirl when you've got Alyson Hannigan to drool over? Plus, somehow I think that SMG would never take a role that required her to utter the line "And one time, at band camp, I stuck a flute up my pussy."

      --
      Why is it that the proponents of "one nation under God" are so eager to get rid of "liberty and justice for all"?
    3. Re:Relevency of Buffy by ncc74656 · · Score: 2, Funny
      Doesn't every nerd have a huge poster of Sarah Michelle Gellar next to their Matrix poster? :)

      I don't think so...

      I bet you're still living in your parents' cellar
      Downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar
      Posting "me too" like some brain-dead AOLer
      I should do the world a favor and cap you like Old Yeller
      You're about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    4. Re:Relevency of Buffy by samboneym · · Score: 1

      Ditto, mine's called buffy.

    5. Re:Relevency of Buffy by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "I bet you're still living in your parents' cellar
      Downloading pictures of Sarah Michelle Gellar
      Posting "me too" like some brain-dead AOLer
      I should do the world a favor and cap you like Old Yeller
      You're about as useless as JPEGs to Helen Keller"

      [Banky] "Who is Helen Keller?"

    6. Re:Relevency of Buffy by kinga · · Score: 1
      Plus, somehow I think that SMG would never take a role that required her to utter the line "And one time, at band camp, I stuck a flute up my pussy."

      You must have missed Cruel Intentions ;)

    7. Re:Relevency of Buffy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for you.

  27. Will Joss Slay Again? by fm6 · · Score: 5, Insightful
    I'm forced to agree. Except that Whedon's basic problem isn't fatigue -- that's just a symptom. It's that he keeps overreaching himself.

    Consider the "First Evil" arc. They started that one over four years ago!!! Yeah, I know we you like the way he plants clues and goes for a slow buildup. So do I. But that buildup looks like the workers were drunk and AWOL half the time!

    The whole series is full of stuff like that. My favorite villain in all of genre fiction is Glorificus, The Fashion Queen from Another Dimension. But I was only able to enjoy her arc by nodding at the plot inconsistencies you could drive a truck through. A willing fan can do that for a while (hence Star Trek), but Buffy fans have less patience.

    I think if Joss Whedon is going to remain a major player (and I do hope he manages to revive Firefly) he's gonna have to rethink his working style. TV and movies are collaborative media, yet he insists that all the big insights be his and his alone. That prevents people from hijacking his vehicles (as happened with the Buffy movie) but also prevents people from telling him when his clothes are no invisible, but missing. No wonder Buffy got so far off track.

    1. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by jeffasselin · · Score: 2, Insightful
      he's gonna have to rethink his working style. TV and movies are collaborative media, yet he insists that all the big insights be his and his alone.

      I disagree. The best TV series ever (Babylon 5) was mostly a gigantic effort from one man: JMS. He had collaborators, just like Joss has, but the bulk of the work was his, and it showed. I say power to Joss all the way.

      --
      If he explores all forms and substances Straight homeward to their symbol-essences; He shall not die.
    2. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by spoco2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      yet he insists that all the big insights be his and his alone

      Yet in the Article, he states:

      "It would have been impossible for me to predict where Buffy's character would go by the end of the series because the character is informed by so many things. You have to find out what people respond to, you have to find out what works on the show, what aspects make sense, what your meaning is. "

      So, that would seem to suggest that there's a fairly substantial feedback loop going on there between himself, the viewers and others...

      I don't think he goes it entirely alone... And for the most part the real issues with the last couple of seasons have been with the actual dialogue or more specfic things with episodes, which come about from the actual writer of the script, and Joss doesn't seem to have written many of the later episodes at all.

      Having said that the final season (I don't know what episode you're up to in the states, but we're only part way through in Aus) has been by and large painful to watch... It's really being that bad. I've been watching the last season of Angel, as I had stopped watching that, and I'm finding it FAR more enjoyable than the current Buffy.

    3. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by samdu · · Score: 1
      TV and movies are collaborative media, yet he insists that all the big insights be his and his alone. That prevents people from hijacking his vehicles (as happened with the Buffy movie) but also prevents people from telling him when his clothes are no invisible, but missing. No wonder Buffy got so far off track.


      Didn't seem to hurt Straczynski on Babylon 5.

    4. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by a42 · · Score: 1
      No wonder Buffy got so far off track.


      You know, I hear people dis season 6 all the time and I just don't get it. Season 6 was beyond brilliant -- it was utterly sublime. Was it painful? Hell yeah, but so is life. It was supposed to be painful and disjointed and hearbreaking. If they'd just made season [insert number here] over and over again it would have been dead boring, I think. Season 6 made the characters grow and it made the audience grow as well.

    5. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by I+Want+GNU! · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Yeah, so who would he listen to? Firefly was on Fox so perhaps he'd listen to those network execs? The ones who cancelled Futurama, Family Guy, Firefly, and every other great show that started with an F? No, you see, his efforts are great because they are his. Neal Stephenson works like that too. You didn't see Shakespeare or Van Gogh making their art in ways that marketers wanted to.

      Didn't you learn anything from Dilbert? The lesson is that marketing departments suck.

    6. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Are you kidding? What hair he didn't lose turned white!

      Oh. you mean artistically.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    7. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by Slurm-V · · Score: 1

      Interesting comparison. Straczynski did practically all of the writing for late B5, whereas Whedon doesn't actually write or direct many episodes - though he is apparently involved in all of them.

      Bear in mind, though, that B5 ran for only 5 seasons (which was planned, I know) - and in my humble opinion the final season was not his best work (I liked it, but not as much the previous two - if you loved it, good for you). I seem to recall that even he aquiesced to such criticism later, citing a certain tunnel vision derived from exhaustion - but I can't find a reference without looking even less like I'm working - you can always ask on usenet or something >;-). In any event - Whedon, too, is claiming tiredness in most of the interviews I've read.

      Of course, the 5th was also the season B5 switched networks - like season 6 of Buffy. Perhaps there's a link to network hopping and shark jumping.

      --
      Of course it's going off the rails. How else is it ever going to fly?
    8. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Informative

      Well, the B5 effort was hijacked by all sorts of external effects- unpredictable actor availability (3 main characters left unexpectedly) and an uncertain number of seasons.

      Yes, Straczynski planned for 5 seasons originally- but towards the end of season 4, it really looked like #5 wouldn't get made (the current network was dropping it, and no one was found to take it up until the last minute)

      So, he squeezed many of the concluding events into the 4th season, in case it turned out to be the final one. That's why the main villians were all vanquished in the 4th season, and the 5th opened up with discovery of new (servitor) monsters that had been hidden under rocks up till then.

      So, it's really understandable that the 5th season seemed lacking- it's best parts were squeezed into earlier episodes.

    9. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      You have me confused with somebody who can watch B5 without nausea. No, let's not get into the usual flame war. Been there, done that.

    10. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ehm... If "...but also prevents people from telling him when his clothes are no invisible, but missing." is a reference to H.C. Andersen - then I encourage you to go read it again as you have certainly missed the point ;)

    11. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by fm6 · · Score: 1

      There do seem to be some people who loved S6. I don't know what to say to them. Maybe it's just that even a bad Buffy ep is better than most TV.

    12. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 1

      Actually, Shakespeare is widely considered to have pandered to the lowest common denominator (Hence all the gore and sex in many of his works). Don't know about Van Gogh, but the majority of artists throughout history have catered to the wishes of someone other than themselves, be it patrons, advertising companies, or just the invisible hand of the marketplace. Not saying it's the only way; just that its a viable one.

    13. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by SpryGuy · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and I don't know what to say to people who hated Season 6. I loved it. I thought it was amazing and sublime. I thought it went places no network TV show had ever gone before.

      It wasn't perfect. I hated the whole double-meat palace thing, personally. But over all, the season had some of my favorite moments. It was just a bet "unrelenting" at times. Still, I don't know how you could have handled the season any other way than to go as dark as it did.

      And it completely shines in comparrison to season 7.

      Season 5 is still my favorite though, I think. Glory, Glory! :-)

      --

      - Spryguy
      There are three kinds of people in this world: those that can count and those that can't
    14. Re:Will Joss Slay Again? by fm6 · · Score: 1
      Well, at least we agree on some things. How can you not worship a Goddess whose "issues" include "selfish mortals" who won't let her destroy their universe?!

      One thing Joss Whedon absolutely does better than anybody else is bad guys. They're so damned self-righteous!

  28. Don't worry, Buffy fans... by PudriK · · Score: 1

    He'll be back with a new series once he's spent all his money from this one.

    1. Re:Don't worry, Buffy fans... by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Um, he's already got Angel.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
  29. time travel? divination? by Transient0 · · Score: 2, Funny

    Slashback tonight brings you updates on the future

    That's a pretty good trick... care to tell me how you do it?

    1. Re:time travel? divination? by robfoo · · Score: 1

      /. has had it for a while, only subscribers get it :)

    2. Re:time travel? divination? by Skater · · Score: 1

      That's a pretty good trick... care to tell me how you do it?

      That's a pretty good trick you do.

      Note how I excerpted parts of your question to create something else with a completely different meaning! Neat, huh?

      --RJ

    3. Re:time travel? divination? by mgblst · · Score: 2, Funny

      Simple, when they dupe one of these items, they will simply clame that the first was merely an edition from the future. Quite clever really. Whoever did this has real management potential!

  30. Spoken like a true geek! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So you believe that Iraq needs high speed data services? I've got news for you: Iraq needs clean water, safe roads, and some sort of basic _voice_ communication system.

    Its not even that clear that anyone in the developed world wants/needs 3G data services. I'm personally not willing to pay Verizon an extra $5/month for the "wireless internet".

    Also keep in mind that everyone around Iraq is on a GSM network which will make interoperability, service, parts, etc...al that much easier.

    The is a case where the "better technology" is not the best choice.

  31. coincidence by zephc · · Score: 1

    what about GSM vs. SMG *grin*

    --
    "I would say that 99 per cent of what my father has written about his own life is false." - L. Ron Hubbard Jr.
  32. Buffy... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    B U F F Y R U L Z ! !



  33. Star Wars kid... by MoronGames · · Score: 2

    It's amazing how much transfer that stupid video has used up. I wonder what being slashdotted will do to it... I can't believe there's been $3,519 in donations to buy that kid stuff! Amazing! I'm gonna go do something stupid and film it so people will buy me stuff! For the record, I'd like a shiny new power mac with dual processors and one of those huge screens.

    --
    hey!
    1. Re:Star Wars kid... by vistic · · Score: 1

      It should be safe from slashdotting (the actual movie anyway, not sure about the website) since it's a bittorrent.

  34. Interview by The+Bungi · · Score: 3, Funny

    Perhaps Slashdot should do an interview with the Star Wars kid. To further the emotional scarring =)

  35. Cowboyneal? by moosesocks · · Score: 3, Funny

    Bah. We all know that Lucas is going to surprise us in the next SW film with a 15-minute lightsaber sequence featuring Cowboyneal.

    --
    -- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
    1. Re:Cowboyneal? by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      you know, wouldnt it be VERY cool if someone lobbied Lucas to get this kid's likeness CGed into a role in the next movie? maybe an extra off in the distance...

  36. Why buffy sucks by fluxrad · · Score: 0, Troll

    I think after watching the first 5 minutes of the "final episode" of Buffy, I can summarize exactly what it is about Buffy that just pisses me off, as well as what it is that makes the show suck:

    "The cookie analogy." Let me get this straight, all those people who love this show think it is one of the best written on TV. And yet, during the final episode, while (as I've been told), Buffy and her friends are in an epic battle to save the whole fucking world, she finds 10 minutes to talk about how her love live is like fucking cookies? Oh yeah, Hamlet's got nothing on this show.

    This show seriously doesn't know whether or not it's supposed to be a drama or a comedy - and screws up pretty well at being either. No matter what episode I watch, which is, unfortunately, quite a few, I can't help but feel the writers have absolutely no sense of proportion or timing.

    Alas, I think i'm about the only person on /. who won't be crying over the loss of this particular show. Vive la South Park!

    --
    "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    1. Re:Why buffy sucks by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      Hamlet made his share of bad puns and quips while contemplating suicide and murder. What's your point? The show has its own language and style. The cookie analogy was appropriate for the characters and situation.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    2. Re:Why buffy sucks by kogs · · Score: 0
      her love live sic is like fucking cookies

      Umm, crumbs in difficult-to-remove places. I bet her fans will be wanting to lap this up.

    3. Re:Why buffy sucks by Pig+Bodine · · Score: 1
      "The cookie analogy." Let me get this straight, all those people who love this show think it is one of the best written on TV. And yet, during the final episode, while (as I've been told), Buffy and her friends are in an epic battle to save the whole fucking world, she finds 10 minutes to talk about how her love live is like fucking cookies? Oh yeah, Hamlet's got nothing on this show.

      Have you forgotten Polonius's tendency to crap on with all sorts of cliches and dubious analogies? "There---my blessing with thee, and these few precepts in thy memory...". And then it goes on and on, precept after precept. Polonius was supposed to be funny. Someone else has pointed out that some of Hamlet's madness is intended to be funny. Obviously Shakespeare didn't know if Hamlet was to be a comedy or drama.

      I won't claim Buffy is as well written as Hamlet. But I am of the camp that thinks it is better written than most stuff on TV. The reasons:

      1. It had ongoing plots and the characters developed over an extended period.
      2. It integrated comedy and drama effectively. This appears to be what you don't like, but for me both worked and both benefited from the mix. It certainly can't be any worse than humorless drama that makes you want to kill the pathetic lifeless characters or constant one-liners delivered from cardboard cutouts and ethnic stereotypes made incarnate.
      3. It poked fun at cliches and managed to do things that were unexpected. The surprise plot twists actually surprised me. This is rare.

      I will say that there were some holes in the plots and some plot lines that weren't followed up on. But this is likely to happen in anything complicated carried out over an extended period---especially if the whole thing isn't planned in advance. Anyway, I can forgive that sort of plotting flaw if there are other features of interest. After all does anyone really think the ending of the Tempest makes sense: Prospero is all set to exact his revenge and the whole thing ends in about a page with a wedding? A natural logical plot with all loose ends tied up isn't everything.

  37. Welcome to the real world by xixax · · Score: 1
    If it weren't for Quallcom's patents on CDMA, nobody would be using GSM
    ....
    Building an infrastructure from the ground up on TDMA technology is just brain-dead politics.

    Leaving aside any technical arguments, grasping your ankles for Qualcomm would be even more brain-dead.

    At least this way their phones will work in most of the free world.

    Xix.

    --
    "Everything is adjustable, provided you have the right tools"
  38. Jedi Kid is really one of the lost Stick Ninjas... by deleted_soul · · Score: 1

    For an Apple IPod I'd swing around an old musty broom and hit myself in the back of the head a few times. Hell I'll even do it in the middle of Houston traffic during rush our.

    Maybe we should strap a webcam to the broom so you we get the swinging action from different angles.

    --
    this sig is classified..how about yours?
  39. So long, Buffster. Thanks for all the writing. by Sans_A_Cause · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It was pretty clear, even during the last episode in, admittedly, one of the weaker story arcs why this show has such a devoted following: the writing is incredible. Thanks to Joss and everybody involved for creating characters, plots, and dialog that were immensely entertaining (the D&D scene alone had me laughing hysterically). I'm going to miss this show and these characters. Why can't shows with potential like, say, Enterprise figure out the tricks Buffy managed to pull year after year? Note to Paramount: maybe you have to start caring about the writing again to bring a borefest like Trek back to life. Notice that no one on Buffy wore catsuits.

  40. Don't forget to donate his iPod by rekrutacja · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Here is an exact link: http://www.jish.nu/2003_05_01_archive.php#20028747 3 I would really love, if we will manage to buy him not only iPod, but also a Mac he desire.

    --
    This Is Not a Sig
  41. A Bad ending to a bad show, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    When Buffy started, it was an action-comedy. Basically a sitcom with vampires. It was an above average sitcom, too. A big part of the fun, for example, was listening to The Master's quips. He was evil and he enjoyed being evil, sort of like Dr. Evil in Austin Powers. It didn't take itself seriously and if you watched it, you didn't take it seriously.

    Then the show started to fall apart. It didn't happen all at once, but after a while it stopped being a sitcom. Thus, you have a problem, a TV show with an intentionally comical premise (Buffy the Vampire Slayer), turned into a serious supernatural drama similar to, say, Millenium (at best the Suddenly Millenium spoof they did on Mad TV combining Millenium with Suddenly Susan).

    1. Re:A Bad ending to a bad show, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It was never a sitcom. It was a drama with comedy. And the show still doesn't take itself seriously. Look at Andrew talking about Faith attacking the Vulcanologist, or Buffy's funny bad joke about Caleb splitting. It's all still there.

    2. Re:A Bad ending to a bad show, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yep. And it's no surprise that this episode was written and directed by Joss.

      He does make a big difference.

    3. Re:A Bad ending to a bad show, however... by fluxrad · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Look at Andrew talking about Faith attacking the Vulcanologist, or Buffy's funny bad joke about Caleb splitting. It's all still there.


      Yes, and the show gets -10 points for reusing an old Running Man one-liner. But don't worry, I'll get a -1 for talking smack about Buffy on /.

      The problem with the show as a "drama" is that it completely loses credibility with the amount of trite humor written in to each script. Drama, without a doubt, needs humor. A perfect example is the doorman in MacBeth, or Dogbury in Much Ado About Nothing. If you want to watch absolute mastery of this in modern times, look no further than Aaron Sorkin (West Wing) or most of the writing on Star Trek: TNG which, incedentally, is why that was considered the last great Star Trek series. But this show had too much of it. If it was a drama, then it had too much comedy for the actual dramatic aspects of the script to effectively come through. If it was a comedy, then it had too much drama to be substantially funy enough to make the grade.

      I see three things that prevent Buffy from being anything more than another shite WB/UPN series, First and foremost is the acting. As much as I try to look past the teenage angst-ridden script, all I see is B-grade actors who are most likely never going to make it to an actual network TV show (not WB or UPN). Granted, much of the dialogue prohibits full realization of their acting skills, but you can't blame everything on the script. The fact of the matter is that I can't relate to anyone on the show.

      Secondly, the show is convoluted. The movie, AFAIC, was a piece of art. It poked fun at the trashy valley-girl stigma attached to so-cal in the early 90's while at the same time bringing a fresh horror-spoof to the whole thing. I just wish I could have been in the pitch room for that one. The problem is that doesn't translate well to TV. The concept was obviously meant for the big screen as, once the vampires are removed from Sunnydale, the gimmick is over. The writers of the show, in order to keep people from fleeing like they were at a Great White concert, had to come up with some new and more enveloping angle with each passing season, which created a two-fold problem. 1 - everyone has to watch at least five or six episodes in a row before they "get" the plot (at least, this is what I have been told repeatedly). And 2 - it gets trite. Once the novelty of vampires wears off, you have to switch to witches, demons, godesses, and everything else your mother warned you about. That, my friend, is the mark of a show that didn't have a decent premise to begin with.

      Lastly, the writing is just terrible. Everything the actors say seems to be geared toward impressing high-school students or allowing introverts to live vicariously through the show. As I said before, a perfect example is the "cookie dough" scene I sat impatiently through in the final episode. That had no place in a pre-armageddon spectacular complete with uber-demons and the death of cast regulars. I honestly don't think the writers of this show have ever given any thought to how real people would act in any of these situations. And I for one don't particularly care to watch drama that has no grounding in reality. It becomes corny and contrived which is, after all, what I feel this show was from the get go.

      --
      "It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
    4. Re:A Bad ending to a bad show, however... by Ill_Omen · · Score: 1

      I honestly don't think the writers of this show have ever given any thought to how real people would act in any of these situations.


      Sure they did... remember the scenes of everyone leaving Sunnydale? that's how real people react. Buffy wasn't about real people.
    5. Re:A Bad ending to a bad show, however... by Black+Jack+Hyde · · Score: 1
      Drama, without a doubt, needs humor...Star Trek: TNG which, incedentally, is why that was considered the last great Star Trek series.

      Best TNG one-liner: Q loses his powers and ends up onboard the Enterprise. When Q complains and asks what he must do to prove he's human, Worf sums it up perfectly:
      Die.

      Jack

    6. Re:A Bad ending to a bad show, however... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ah yes, the cookie dough. Much maligned since the script was leaked. Nope, not what a real person would say, but it's exactly what Buffy would say. Buffy has a cutesy, dorky side to her, and while it didn't come out much lately it was featured prominently in the past. It didn't play out poorly, and Angel even intimated that he thought it was dumb, and Buffy somewhat agreed. People don't always say the perfect thing at the perfect time. Sometimes they fuck up and say stupid shit.

      Using the cookie dough scene to malign the series would be like saying the show is stupid because she used an old joke when she split Caleb down the middle. Jeez, the whole point of the joke was that it was cheezy and lame. That's what that snort was about after she said it. It was a dork moment, she couldn't help herself, and she laughed at herself about it. If you couldn't see that you're a complete moron.

      This dialogue is just who Buffy is (well, was) as a person. After a season of being written as a cold bitch she was starting to become herself again. She didn't hang with the jocks and the cheerleaders, she hung with the dorks. They hung out in the library. Yeah, the cookie dough thing would be retarded coming from the most popular chick in school who had all her shit together, but Buffy had never been that (at least since moving to Sunnydale).

  42. Come on ... by Snaller · · Score: 1

    Dawn is a hottie :)

    --
    If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    1. Re:Come on ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ""C:\My Documents" a concept invented by idiots and only supported by idiots."

      I suppose that /home/$USER is too then?

    2. Re:Come on ... by phaze3000 · · Score: 1

      Seconded, I'd watch that show no question. Let's face it, no-one ever watched Buffy because of the deep plots..

      --
      Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
    3. Re:Come on ... by I(rispee_I(reme · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Note that only the Win9x OS' have a C:\My Documents folder. NT has a My Documents folder for each user, located in C:\Documents And Settings\$USER. I believe the grandparent was referring to this distinction, unless he was trolling...

    4. Re:Come on ... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Note that only the Win9x OS' have a C:\My Documents folder. NT has a My Documents folder for each user, located in C:\Documents And Settings\$USER. I believe the grandparent was referring to this distinction, unless he was trolling

      He was neither. I'm on MY machine. I don't want to be dicated by some idiot OS designer where I MUST put my date. And yes, "/home/$USER" sucks too for me - it may be the only way things can work in a multiuser system, but on my machine it should be my choice not some idiot at Microsoft/sun or whereever.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    5. Re:Come on ... by jshare · · Score: 1
      Well, why don't you move it then?

      Right click "My Documents", pick "Properties", then press the "Move" button.

      I've only tried this on win2k, but I'd figure that XP would be the same. I've no idea about their other OSes.

      Likewise, on unixy systems, you can change your homedir in the /etc/passwd file.

      I guess I'm just not clear what you're complaining about.

    6. Re:Come on ... by carlos_benj · · Score: 1

      You can set your $HOME directory to anything you want it to be in most *nix type OS's.

      --

      --

      As a matter of fact, I am a lawyer. But I play an actor on TV.

    7. Re:Come on ... by AyeRoxor! · · Score: 1

      >Dawn is a hottie :)

      Michelle Trachtenberg is TOTALLY edible!

    8. Re:Come on ... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      Well, why don't you move it then?
      Right click "My Documents", pick "Properties", then press the "Move" button.

      I've only tried this on win2k, but I'd figure that XP would be the same. I've no idea about their other OSes.


      Well, there is no "move" button - though i do believe you can hack the registry to move the collective bunch.

      I guess I'm just not clear what you're complaining about.

      I'm complaining about "someone" (a designer somewhere), trying to force me to store all me files in one specific place. I have a fairly small C drive by design, its quick to reghost windows if something goes, its quicker to defragment, or scandisk, its faster os accesswise etc. I have other drives where I place my things. But someone thought this was a good idea, so all kinds of programs are trying to store shit on the C drive(even when you install them on other drives). More programs are starting to WANT to store their stuff in a "my documents" on C. Even if you move it you end up with one big bloated folder. Even games are doing it, Westwoods "generals" wants to store its save games there, and new maps. And even Mods! In my book that makes them total idiots.(Sure they could say "oh if a lot of people play the game on the same machine they can all have their own save games" - but i think what a family would really would like to do is play against each other, and you can't do that unless you buy more games)
      But I'm just one person using this machine, and I'd prefer to be the one to decide where i store my documents thank you very much.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    9. Re:Come on ... by jshare · · Score: 1
      So, what OS are you running then? On every win2k box that I have access to (and websearching implies it works on XP as well), right-clicking on "My Documents" (the icon on the desktop, or in the root of an explorer window. Not the actual directory/folder named "My Documents"), and then picking "Properties" yields a window with a "Target" tab, where you can change where "My Documents" points.

      Also, I think it is misguided to try to make a small C: drive. I've not reloaded any of my computers in the last 2 years, so you must be doing something wrong.

      Please note: If you are not using NT/2k/XP, disregard that last paragraph, because the other Windows are pieces of shit.

    10. Re:Come on ... by Snaller · · Score: 1

      and then picking "Properties" yields a window with a "Target" tab, where you can change where "My Documents" points.

      Hey, you are right - fancy that :) Never noticed that before, you learn something new everyday. (Not that it helps me that much, since it collectivly changes it)

      Also, I think it is misguided to try to make a small C: drive.

      Apparently the majority thinks that way, that doesn't necessarily mean I'm wrong though.

      I've not reloaded any of my computers in the last 2 years, so you must be doing something wrong.

      Any version of windows i've been using gets slower and slower, bloats with tons of files not longer in use and crashes often. Ideally i should reinstall windows every couple of months.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
  43. "Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    The win or lose situation has nothing to do with US self-bias. If CDMA had won, it would of course prove that fact, but losing does not prove that US is not maybe the most self-biased country on this ball of people.

    Look, people.

    The reconstruction, like most of the war, is being paid for primarily out of the pockets of the US taxpayers. That's mostly coming from US workers.

    Now while the EQUIMPENT goes to Iraq, where should the JOBS go?

    Should the US buy the equipment locally - so SOME of the money goes back into payrolls for US workers (and about half of that into their pockets after taxes and the like)?

    Or should it "Not be Self-Biased" and put it up for international bid?

    So while the equipment goes to Iraq the money can go somewhere else?

    Like maybe to France's Alcatel?

    Or Germany's Siemens?

    RENT A CLUE!

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
    1. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Soulfarmer · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your choice for subject to that reply is also appropriate. Who went in and started that war in the first place? Of course you need to take full advantage of being in there, no question about it.

      BUT, what if Saddam just would have stepped down, and let the so called democracy pour in, would US companies still have first say about re-building the country? Is that bias based solely on war-efforts? In this case, war efforts seem to make US tech bit more better by effect than european.

      And the moneywise situation? US is not going to benefit hugely from Iraqi oil when it is effectively controlling the whole place, whose money is that?

      Bit off the topic, but nice to change opinions about it anyhow.

      --
      -Is the meaning of life vanity, or is vanity the meaning of life?
    2. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by JWW · · Score: 2, Funny

      Like maybe to France's Alcatel?

      I sure hope none of the money goes to Alcatel! Not because they're a French company, but because their stuff is crap.

    3. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by uradu · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      > The reconstruction [...] is being paid for primarily out of the pockets of the US taxpayers.

      Really? Let's wait and see until it's all said and done, and--like the first time around--it will probably be most everyone else EXCEPT the US bearing the costs. See, that way they get the best of both worlds: they get the PR and get to pooh-pooh France and Germany, and then France and Germany (and Japan) will be the ones paying anyway, except without getting the credit. And France and Germany will be "happy" again that the "tensions" with Washington will be over. Who said international politics wasn't fun?

    4. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There's a difference?

      Oh, I forgot--CHEESE!

    5. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by MavEtJu · · Score: 1

      The reconstruction, like most of the war, is being paid for primarily out of the pockets of the US taxpayers. That's mostly coming from US workers.

      So if you destroy something you are also allowed to rebuild it the way you see fit? I suddenly see that the whole 11/9/2001 thing as a scam for Osama Bin Laden to get cheaply access to an in-the-middle-of-New York-so-very-expensive land-area to rebuild his own offices there!

      --
      bash$ :(){ :|:&};:
    6. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are under the hugely erroneous opinion that the US will only rebuild what they destroyed. If so, there wouldn't be much money to spend.

      You are also under the impression that we destroyed the entire country. Even pro Iraq sources don't/didn't even state that.

      The US intends to rebuild their entire country, even if that is defined only to the point of stability and good oil capacity, that is far beyond what Iraq had for decades.

      Your sincerity in having an open mind, taking in multiple credible sources, and independent thinking is NOT reflected in your post. Do better next time. I'm not saying the US are angels, but you're anti-hype is approaching the absurd.

    7. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and that's why you post as an AC...

    8. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I hope it goes to Ericsson, at least there
      will be some opensource involved.

      http://www.erlang.org

    9. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by catsidhe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      You are under the hugely erroneous opinion that the US will only rebuild what they destroyed. If so, there wouldn't be much money to spend.
      The US will rebuild what it needs to, and not one brick more. Even when it is building schools and hospitals, I think it is more because of the PR than because of any inherant philanthropic impulse. (How is Afghanistan doing these days?)

      You are also under the impression that we destroyed the entire country. Even pro Iraq sources don't/didn't even state that.
      The Ministry of Oil is intact. The Museum is not. Even where bombs were not dropped, there are consequences when you invade a country. These are well known. Looting and riots are high up the list. Was no planning done here? ...oh, hang on. Some planning was done, but it was only for 'worthy' targets. Like Oil. (When it comes to the looting of the Museum, which was witnessed by US soldiers who did nothing, the US command can claim only malice, apathy or incompetance.)

      The US intends to rebuild their entire country, even if that is defined only to the point of stability and good oil capacity, that is far beyond what Iraq had for decades.
      The US said the same about Afghanistan. I repeat: how are they doing these days? And for the record: Saudi Arabia is stable and has good oil output. If you think that is a good thing, try living under the Sauds. Stability and oil -- feh! What about hospitals? What about classrooms? What about restoring power and water supplies?
      And also for the record, Iraq has been a haven for education and civilisation for a thousand years. The Iraqi people are still, by-and-large, intelligent, educated, cultured and cosmopolitan. Where is maintaining that tradition in the list of what-must-be-done? Because without it you have just another fundamentalist theocracy. Without careful and thoughtful help right now that still could happen, as the mullahs and imams make their claims to the rights to secular power.

      Your sincerity in having an open mind, taking in multiple credible sources, and independent thinking is NOT reflected in your post. Do better next time. I'm not saying the US are angels, but you're anti-hype is approaching the absurd.
      He was making a reductio ad absurdum argument, by taking an argument and applying it with the same force but the opposite intent. This is a useful technique. It can be used to highlight all sorts of internalised bias. e.g., "The US was justified in invading Vietnam in order to protect it from itself" vs. "Vietnam would be justified in invading the US in order to protect it from itself". See how it works? Try it yourself on what comes out of Fox News sometime.

      --
      "This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
    10. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      First of all, the reconstruction of Iraq will probably not employ a single American outside of a management role. Since the work will not be taking place in the US, MCI is going to hire the cheapest labor they can and outsource as much as possible to low-cost countries.

      The network planning will probably be done in India and the equipment will probably be dropshipped from China or Taiwan. MCI will probably hire Iraqis to do the actual labor in Iraq (keep in mind that Iraq is not a country of cavepeople - it's a modern society where people actually do know things. There are engineers in Iraq just like there are engineers here or anywhere else).

      This whole project will probably be managed out of a foreign MCI profit center anyway. There will probably be a few dozen american managers who rake in lots of bonus money, but that will be the extent to which this is economically stimulating for the U.S.

    11. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >>The reconstruction, like most of the war, is
      >>being paid for primarily out of the pockets of >>the US taxpayers. That's mostly coming from US >>workers.

      !!!!D-U-H!!!!
      RENT A CLUE!

      The reconstruction is being paid for by Iraqi Oil Revenues - and going straight into the pocket of US Multinationals!!!!

      Idiot.

    12. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by SubtleNuance · · Score: 2, Informative

      The reconstruction, like most of the war, is being paid for primarily out of the pockets of the US taxpayers. That's mostly coming from US workers.
      You do know that the puppet-iraq gov is going to hand over untold numbers of oil contracts to american firms eh? this is the real prize here... how many years of pumping cash out of the desert is going to goto the US-Oil now that you've invaded and occupy Iraq?

      The present bickering about 'reconstruction contracts' is missing the really big show. Thats going to be many many many billions in oil plunder.

    13. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 1

      Even when it is building schools and hospitals, I think it is more because of the PR than because of any inherant philanthropic impulse. (How is Afghanistan doing these days?)

      Yeah, the U.N. sure is doing a pathetic job in Afghanistan. Thank God they're not in charge in Iraq.

    14. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      You do know that the puppet-iraq gov is going to hand over untold numbers of oil contracts to american firms eh? this is the real prize here... how many years of pumping cash out of the desert is going to goto the US-Oil now that you've invaded and occupy Iraq?

      The present bickering about 'reconstruction contracts' is missing the really big show. Thats going to be many many many billions in oil plunder.


      Hey dipshit, check this out: if all the US wanted was to be imperialist and take somebody's oil... South America is a lot freaking closer. Not only could we stage from our own country, but the distribution of the oil afterwards would be much easier. Plus, we could always use the war on drugs bullshit that gets trotted out when the government wants to do bad things in third world countries. Also, if we wanted to take over a country, I think Iraq is a far less beautiful and useful country than say...Venezuela.

      And for that matter, as far as oil revenue goes...
      where the hell do you think it went before this year? To the Iraqi people? Hell no! It went to buy saddam's son some pr0n and American movies and got stuck in palaces in trunks, in foreign banks, and invested into terrorist activities and also paid for saddam to live like madonna, to be the biggest fish in his pond. Now, some of that money goes to America. Well, we were the ones who stopped saddam from getting it. Most of the world wanted to keep the status quo, where saddam took *all* the money, rather than institute programs that give at least *some* of that money to the people of Iraq. Sure, maybe they'll be in debt for a while. Kinda like how if you borrow money to go to college, you might be in debt for a while when you get out. Things cost money. Maybe one day we'll be able to convert energy into matter and make everything we need for free. Until then, TANSTAAFL. Deal with it.

    15. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Skjellifetti · · Score: 1

      The museum looting story seems to have been overblown. During much of the looting of the museum, US forces were under fire from inside the museum and could not have prevented the looting without damaging the museum itself.

      What about hospitals? What about classrooms? What about restoring power and water supplies?

      You think that kind of infrastructure just gets restored overnight? Shit, we had a squirrel zap one of our transformers yesterday. The circuit has 100 families on it. It took the local power company 6 hours to get our power turned back on. Multiply that by a whole country...

      And for the record, Iraq has a lower adult literacy rate (58%) than neighbors Jordan (89%) and Syria (65%). Primary education in Iraq has consisted mostly of lessons on the greatness of Saddam Hussein. And also for the record, much of Iraq's long tradition of "civilization" has consisted of conquering and looting its neighbors.

      How is Afghanistan doing these days?

      Afghanistan is probably better off today than at any time since the start of the Soviet invasion.

    16. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      He was making a reductio ad absurdum argument, by taking an argument and applying it with the same force but the opposite intent. This is a useful technique. It can be used to highlight all sorts of internalised bias. e.g., "The US was justified in invading Vietnam in order to protect it from itself" vs. "Vietnam would be justified in invading the US in order to protect it from itself". See how it works? Try it yourself on what comes out of Fox News sometime.
      Try it like this: Fox News is wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications. You are wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications. Dipshit.

    17. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one is suggesting that Americans will be working it Iraq.. the american people are not going to directly benifit from this, its the big american companies that your corrupt government feeds off that will benifit.. MCI is just one on a list of many

    18. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Gannoc · · Score: 1
      (When it comes to the looting of the Museum, which was witnessed by US soldiers who did nothing, the US command can claim only malice, apathy or incompetance.)


      I'm so sick of reading this.


      "Look Bob, they're stealing a painting. Shoot to kill!"

      Front page news "American Solders kill civilians carrying artwork. Several pieces destroyed. French officals enraged."

    19. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by catsidhe · · Score: 1
      Try it like this: Fox News is wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications. You are wrong for having opinions and reflecting them in communications. Dipshit.
      Fox news professes to be a news organisation. This is demonstably untrue.

      Rueters is a news agency. AFP is a news agency. The BBC is a news agency. All of these make concerted efforts to identify sources of bias and make corrections where necessary. Fox news does not. It is not only shameless in its presentation of propaganda as news, it is proud of this!

      I am not a news organisation. I am an individual. I have a right to my opinions, and to freely express my opinions. So do the individuals who work for Fox news. But Fox news has a duty to either employ more than rabid fundamentalist Republicans, or to stop misrepresenting itself as an unbiased news source.

      Apples and oranges.
      --
      "This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
    20. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by catsidhe · · Score: 2, Insightful
      The museum looting story seems to have been overblown. During much of the looting of the museum, US forces were under fire from inside the museum and could not have prevented the looting without damaging the museum itself.
      Oh, really? Try
      a news service which is not American. Because no-one could accuse USAtoday or the Wall Street Journal of being partisan.

      You think that kind of infrastructure just gets restored overnight? Shit, we had a squirrel zap one of our transformers yesterday. The circuit has 100 families on it. It took the local power company 6 hours to get our power turned back on. Multiply that by a whole country...
      That infrastructure would not have needed to be rebuilt overnight if it had not been targeted in the first place. (a war crime by international convention, by the way. Not that that has ever stopped the US army.) As things like water treatment plants and power stations were deliberately targeted, all civilian deaths as a result of their lack are the direct responsiblity of the army who destroyed them.

      ... And also for the record, much of Iraq's long tradition of "civilization" has consisted of conquering and looting its neighbors.
      Unlike the UK (Ireland, India, Australia, great chunks of Africa) or the USA? (Mexico, Nicaragua, Vietnam, Panama, Grenada, Hawaii, the Phillipines, just from the top of my head, and in no particular order). Pot: meet Kettle.

      Afghanistan is probably better off today than at any time since the start of the Soviet invasion.
      Oh, really ?

      --
      "This is a Hollywood movie: when it comes to the Laws of Physics, they're lucky if they get Gravity!" --- my wife
    21. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by untaken_name · · Score: 1

      Just because you happen to agree with a news source does NOT make it unbiased. News no longer means objective reporting solely of facts. If you can say that CNN or MSNBC or any local network affiliate has a news program consisting solely of objective, fact-based reporting, or if you can even find *any* content of that type, you're lying. At least Fox is honest. They don't try to slip their bias by anyone. You're completely free to change the freaking channel, you idiot. What are you afraid of? That maybe you'll actually hear something that makes sense for once in your life? That fox's news personnel are so darn hypnotic that you'll have your core beliefs changed for you against your will? Are they *that* weak? Why can't liberals have their news channels that they...oh wait, they do. Only they like to pretend that 'liberal slant' = 'unbiased'. News these days isn't even really news anymore. Not since they started having to sell commercials on the 6 o'clock news, and 8 inches of ad space for every 4 column inches in the print media. News these days consists of speculation followed by wild rumor followed by talking heads making random predictions that no one remembers 20 minutes after they've failed to come true. (this applies to Fox news, as well. I don't really like Fox news, I just support their right to conduct their news programs how they want.) If it doesn't work, they'll lose money. If they're not going away, then people must like it. Just cause you don't like something does not mean it should be denied to everyone else. Ask fundamentalist Christian pretenders (no real Christian could hate so many people) about organizing around the 'We don't like it so no one gets it' campaign. And by the way.... Fox News is a cable tv news network... reuters and AP are news wire services. now who's comparing apples and oranges? It's funny. I can hear the exact same AP story on Fox and on ABC, and the tone will be completely different. Just use this rule of thumb: if the reporter says anything you *agree* or *disagree* with (i'm not talking about the veracity of the data, just the way it is presented) then what you are hearing is biased. If you can find a major news network, or heck, even a national network, that provides truly unbiased reporting, you're living in a dream world. and by the way....fox has a duty to employ people with certain POLITICAL BELIEFS?!?! Who says? Does CNN have an obligation to hire Pat Buchanan? Equal time went away a long time ago, buddy. You don't like it? Start your own fucking national news network.

    22. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and by the way....fox has a duty to employ people with certain POLITICAL BELIEFS?!?! Who says? Does CNN have an obligation to hire Pat Buchanan?

      Already done.

    23. Re:"Self-Bias" is appropriate in this case. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Pre 1990 Iraq was pretty much the most economically stable country in the arab world. Not to mention Saddam was aided and abetted in committing all those horrendous acts against his own people and Iran by American Cash and (Bio)weapons. I'm not defending Saddam and as the Ad on TV so often repeats "I am an American" but stealing someone else's resources because their own leaders were thieves doesn't actually make America any better. Yes, America has done good in the world but it has also done horrendously bad things, both of which should be kept in perspective. About Isreal, so what if they're a democracy (theocracy??), Iran also has elections and votes their own leaders. Frankly I don't see much of a difference in Iran supporting Terrorists blowing up Innocent people in a Mall and America supporting a government that blows up people's homes and fires rockets at civilians.

  44. CDMA sucks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Crappy codec that sounds no where near as good as EFR on GSM. Crappy phones with short battery life. Wot ? No bluetooth ? Most have no infrared even.

    These phones are lightyears behind GSM phones.

    Also, saying that the US is "CDMA territory" is simply wrong. Cingular, AT&T and T-Mobile (VoiceStream) are 3 of the top providers in the US, Sprint and Verizon being the other two.

    Hate to break it to the CDMA biggots here, but there are more GSM subscribers in the US than CDMA.

    I've used both over many years, and gravitate back to GSM for better sound, SMS that works and yup, the all important international roaming.

    CDMA is technically better, especially in remote areas, but GSM is the way to go.

    CDMA is simply a bad case of NIH.

    1. Re:CDMA sucks. by bill_mcgonigle · · Score: 1

      CDMA is technically better, especially in remote areas, but GSM is the way to go.

      Yeah, screw the hicks, I live in an urban area, and I'd much rather have slightly better sound quality than have a standard that could work around the country...

      --
      My God, it's Full of Source!
      OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
    2. Re:CDMA sucks. by kevin+lyda · · Score: 1

      uh...

      i live on the west coast of ireland. just left of the middle of nowhere. for a while only one mobile operator had good coverage here, but now others do as well.

      --
      US Citizen living abroad? Register to vote!
  45. Uhm priorities? by waspleg · · Score: 1

    you morons are rambling about rebuilding wireless networks for iraqis who are still starving packed small caves w/ their families trying to survive most likely

    and we still dont' have bin laden or hussein and no one seems to notice or care

    but we like the terrorism alert colours, they're alwyas fun...

    1. Re:Uhm priorities? by yancey · · Score: 1

      How do you rebuild a country without decent communication?

      --
      Ouch! The truth hurts!
    2. Re:Uhm priorities? by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      How do you rebuild a country without decent communication

      oh, i dunno, maybe ask the locals how they would like you to help?

  46. Syndication by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    FWIW I've read that the biggest contributing factor is that 7 seasons worth of episodes is the optimal number (according to the marketplace) for selling as a syndication package.

  47. No offense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    but is it just me or are the trolls now masquerading as non-trolls? It seems that every topic now has a +5 thread from someone saying "just to pre-empt the trolls..." and then goes on to write junk...

    Here is a thought - don't mod the trolls up, and don't mod the troll-watchers up either.

    1. Re:No offense by Squidgee · · Score: 1
      but is it just me or are the trolls now masquerading as non-trolls?

      That'd be an interesting thesis if...I was a troll.

      But I'm not; sorry to disappoint. (Don't believe me? Check my user info)

  48. Triband? by a1ok · · Score: 1

    Triband phones won't work either - these work with three different GSM bands - 800, 1800 & 1900 MHz - not gsm and cdma. Phones which do work with both cdma and gsm do exist, iirc they're called GAIT phones (dunno what the abbreviation stands for)

  49. MCI Gets Contract? Smells like Bailout by malus · · Score: 1

    Please, please. So MCI couldn't buy Sprint (PCS), so now they get their apologies from the [Bush] Government, "Here, ya'll can set up your network in Iraq."

  50. Best Willow quip of the night by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Willow:

    "...I could lose control. And I don't mean like 'my girl-friend's got a tongue-ring losing control'"

    Dawn, a few minutes later:

    "OH! Tongue-ring..."

    :-) Why couldn't Xander's dream have included the tongue-ring, Kennedy, Willow, AND Dawn?! Now THAT would have been a series climax!

    1. Re:Best Willow quip of the night by schon · · Score: 1

      Why couldn't Xander's dream have included the tongue-ring, Kennedy, Willow, AND Dawn?

      "Sometimes I think about two women doing a spell, then I do a spell by myself."

  51. Anyone notice reference to Trogdor in Buffy? by Rheingold · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Did anyone notice the reference to Trogdor the Burninator in Buffy? It was rad!

    --
    Wil
    wiki
    1. Re:Anyone notice reference to Trogdor in Buffy? by jpsst34 · · Score: 1

      Well, it only makes sense, considering that the show takes place in the year 20X6. That's "twenty exty six" to the layman.

      --
      How are you going to keep them down on the farm once they've seen Karl Hungus?
  52. Puffy the Vampire Slayer by Erebus · · Score: 2, Funny

    That girl can stretch a t-shirt like nobody's bidness...

  53. Nooooo.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Obviously the proper choice would be Golpher-Chucks.

    Mmmmm, Memento

  54. Re:Jedi Kid is really one of the lost Stick Ninjas by geekoid · · Score: 1

    "Houston traffic during rush our."
    yeah thats dangers, bunch of cars speeding along at 2 MPH. OTOH Texas is the 'he needed killin'" state.

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  55. Collaboration: A Rant by fm6 · · Score: 1
    Responding to viewer feedback is all very well, but that's not what I was talking about. When I say that TV shows and movies are collaborations, I'm talking about the people who work on the production. For example, it's pretty common for actors to have some say as to how their characters develop. If the actor's intelligent, and not just playing star ego games, this is a good thing, because it assures that somebody is keeping track of the character's evolution. But Whedon is firmly in the "just hit your marks and say your lines" camp.

    (It's probably worth mentioning that Whedon passionately believes that some of the actors in the Buffy movie were playing star ego games. Even if its true, it doesn't validate a Kremlin model of production.)

    I think that's a big reason Season 6 went so thoroughly wrong. It wasn't because it was "dark" -- Buffy has always been dark. What made it unbearable is that none of the characters seemed to be going anywhere.

    One thing that particularly bugged me was Xander's poorly explained attack of cowardice in the wedding episode. (I guess this is an issue for me because "The Zeppo" is pretty much my favorite episode -- especially Xander's non-dialogue with Cordelia at the end.) If anybody had been tracking the character properly, they would have realized that it made no sense for him to suddenly lose his nerve. They would have found another way to break up his relationship with Anya, or simply eliminated the (not very interesting) subarc about their subsequent conflict and reconciliation. Instead, Whedon and the other writers just said, "Sorry, Nic, Emma, we need the marriage not to happen. Not open to debate." Big mistake.

    Mind you, I'm not saying that Whedon should become one of those dweebs at the beck and call of soulless studio/network execs and idiotic focus groups. He has his vision, and he needs to defend it -- it's why we all love him. But he needs to understand that he can't realize that vision alone.

    I once heard Jodie Foster say that making a movie is like raising a child. It's something nobody can do alone, and if the whole thing is successful, your project has a life all it's own. Not just true for kids and movies!

    1. Re:Collaboration: A Rant by eloki · · Score: 1

      One thing that particularly bugged me was Xander's poorly explained attack of cowardice in the wedding episode.

      I didn't feel it was poorly explained. Xander's home and family life has always been depicted throughout the show as being awful, and his relatives a nightmare (who we got to see in that wedding ep, though rather a let-down).

      In the wedding episode, Xander is shown a graphic depiction of the future, and how he might treat Anya. It's an awful vision of how he might end up, given his family history. The big event of the episode of the episode is that Xander fears this enough to call off the wedding, even though he has found out the vision isn't real. The problem for him is that he feels it could come true, and he'd rather not get married than end up treating Anya like that. Seeing your fears made graphic is much worse than just a vague fear - that vision made it materialise, for better or worse.

    2. Re:Collaboration: A Rant by fm6 · · Score: 1

      Dude, I did see the episode. But it doesn't sound like you've seen any of the other episodes in which the character evolved, building up his self-confidence and coping skills as he went.

    3. Re:Collaboration: A Rant by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Here's an idea: he doesn't agree with your assessment.

      What a crazy idea. Afterall, you're always so right about everything, right?

  56. BTVS Finale: Reader's Digest Version by dghcasp · · Score: 5, Funny
    Angel to Buffy: Here's a magic amulet. The writers didn't bother to come up with a backstory for it. And now that I've spoken, union rules say I have to be paid for the whole episode. (Angel Leaves.)

    Buffy to Spike: Here's a magic amulet. Let's shag.

    Buffy to Willow: I need a spell.
    Willow: I'm scared.
    Buffy: Don't worry. The writers didn't bother to look up the latin. All you have to do is sit and look constipated.
    Willow: I can do that; I had bran today!

    Wood to Faith: I'm better looking than you, skank.

    Andrew: I'm a geek. Wheeeee!

    (Inside the Hellmouth)

    Kennedy: Look at all the vampires.
    Buffy: Don't worry. Willow's spell made you all slayers.
    Kennedy: Why didn't we do this in episode 3 this season? Then we could have had time for some good episodes.
    Buffy: Shut up ho, and kill uber-vamps.

    Kennedy: Hey, how come one of these uber-vamps kicked Buffy's arse six ways to sunday for two episodes, yet now we're killing thousands of them.
    Faith. Shut up and kill uber-vamps.

    The First: Neener neener neener
    Buffy: Beat it, bitch.

    Spike: Woo hoo, me necklace is killing all the uber-vamps.
    Kennedy: Shame angel couldn't have brought it in episode 3, then we could have...
    Spike: stuff it, wanker.

    Anya: Hey, how come I have to be the only one to die?

    (Above ground)

    Dawn: Hey look, the whole town's gone, fallen into a pit.
    Cordelia: I always said Sunnydale was a pit.
    Xander: Beat it, slut, you're not in this show anymore.
    Cordelia: oops.

    Willow: So, what do we do now?
    Buffy: fuckifiknow.

    (Fade to black)

    1. Re:BTVS Finale: Reader's Digest Version by Johnny+Pissoff · · Score: 1

      That's so inaccurate it's not funny. Hey, it's not funny anyway. 1. The amulet's back story was given on the latest episode of Angel when he aquired it. Guess you just have to buy into the, ahem, synergy (I can't believe I just used that word) and watch both shows. 2. More like, let's cuddle. *snip* 6. The spell Willow performed required that bitchin' ancient Slayer axe that Buffy only recently acquired. So that's why they didn't do it in "episode 3". 7. That wasn't an uber-vamp that kicked Buffy's butt but an all too human Caleb, juiced up by the First. 9. Amulet only recently aquired. See #1. 10. Spike "died" too. Though his soul was purified by the amulet. 12. Willow: So, what do we do now? Buffy: Everything I always wanted to do but couldn't because the heavy burden of being The Slayer weighed on me and me alone.

    2. Re:BTVS Finale: Reader's Digest Version by evilviper · · Score: 1
      Buffy: Shut up ho, and kill uber-vamps.

      Apparently, Buffy has resorted talking to the interjections of the english language, and wants them to help kill vampires.

      On the other hand, perhaps this was simply a typo, and she has actually been speaking to gardening tools.

      Of course, it's a rather short word, which could be corrected in many different ways. She just might be greek, and is speaking to the general populous.

      --
      Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
    3. Re:BTVS Finale: Reader's Digest Version by r0gueb1t · · Score: 1

      I've watched this show for years and was sad to see it go last night. However, my favorite part in the last episode wasn't the reunion with Angel or the battle with the ueber-Vamps. It was when Giles and a few of the other Scoobies were sitting around the playing some roleplaying game only to be attacked by TROGDOR the BURNINATOR!

      http://www.homestarrunner.com/trogdor.html

    4. Re:BTVS Finale: Reader's Digest Version by wayward_son · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You forgot a scene:

      Xander: Where's Anya?
      Andrew: She's dead.
      Xander: Oh, just wanted to know.

      Am I the only one bothered by the fact that no one, not even Xander seems to care that Anya's dead?

      He was a lot more upset about the death of Tara, Joyce, and even Jenny Calendar that he was about Anya. He barely showed any reaction to Anya's death.

    5. Re:BTVS Finale: Reader's Digest Version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'd just gone to war. They expected to lose people. The scene between Xander and Andrew was reminiscent of hardened (well, one cowardly dorky) warriors inquiring of fallen warrior friends. That whole second mall scene? That was them trying to cope with what had just happened and what they had lost. Defense mechanism. That's what the first mall scene was about too. They didn't want to break down and say goodbye, so they chatted about malls. People were about to die, probably some of them, and they knew it. They didn't need to be weepy at the moment, they needed to steel themself for battle.

      There was plenty of time for contemplation and tears once they all got on the bus and headed out for wherever they were going. That's when they could grieve. You didn't get to see 3 hours later when it had all sunk in, as you did in the 3 cases that you mentioned. You saw 5 minutes later, when the adrenalyn was still pumping and they hadn't had a chance to digest it all.

      I hate to see this kind of criticism of the episode because buffy fans always say they like the show because the writing was/is so good and smart, but it seems that most of them don't even get a lot of it.

      The episode didn't give us closure on the life of Anya. That's a valid criticism. I'm not sure if Whedon knew that she was as popular as she is. Maybe I overestimate her popularity as she was probably my favourite out of them all. Her blink of the eye death and no on screen mourning left me feeling the need for something more. That sounds stupid, but it is what it is. A longer death scene, like Spike's (although I understand that wasn't really a death), or some mourning by the survivors would have been more satisfying. I totally agree with that.

    6. Re:BTVS Finale: Reader's Digest Version by Hepkat · · Score: 1
      Buffy: Don't worry. The writers didn't bother to look up the latin. All you have to do is sit and look constipated.
      Willow: I can do that; I had bran today!


      uh... bran makes you regular, not constipaged
  57. Firefly! Firefly! Firefly! by fm6 · · Score: 3, Interesting
    From what I've heard, Whedon is trying very, very hard to revive Firefly in some form. Most people in his position would have given up by now. I think this particular show is very important to him.

    Possibly he thinks he could have saved the series if he hadn't been so overcommitted (three active series, and development work on two more). Probably not true: I think a lot of Fox people either didn't understand Firefly or just didn't think such a high-budget series could be profitable. (Reality shows are so much cheaper to produce!) Still, it would have had a better chance if Whedon had been able to fight the network's creative meddling and idiotic scheduling.

    I once read an interview with him, where's he's standing on the bridge of Serenity (the set is a complete mockup of the ship) and proclaiming that he's in "Geek Heaven". Ever since Fox pulled the series, I've been watching the news for reports that the set has been broken up. Unless I missed that report, he's keeping that set around, which must be costing him a mint. If he gives up and gets rid of the set, then we'll know that Firefly is dead, no mouth-to-mouth, no resurrection spell!

    1. Re:Firefly! Firefly! Firefly! by Wraithlyn · · Score: 1

      I followed the firefly message boards for a while (very interesting, many cast members posted occasionally, Adam Baldwin posted hundreds of times), and I do recall reading that the sets were taken down. :( (Joss said something to the effect of not to worry, they can be put back up again in no time flat)

      --
      "Mind, as manifested by the capacity to make choices, is to some extent present in every electron." -Freeman Dyson
  58. Can't agree by Dusabre · · Score: 4, Insightful

    GSM is cheap because its old. Cheap GSM stations and cheap GSM phones. I might be able to pay $1000 for a PDA CDMA phone but an Iraqi might only have $50 for his basic GSM (I'm sure he'd love to have the phone I threw away 4 years ago because it was getting tacky)

    GSM is implemented throughout the Middle East - allowing roaming and phone exports/transfers over the border.

    GSM is well known to technicians.

    GSM works well in environments like Iraq. You might live in some isolated part of the huge US of A where GSM sucks but Iraq is an urban and concentrated country. Most people live near the cities or the river valleys.

    GSM does not suck. It allows clear voice transmissions and gives an acceptable data transfer rate (not for internet browsing but for email okay).

    Iraq does not need an expensive data network with bells on it. It needs one that works. And GSM works excellently - as Europe can testify.

    GSM is not the future. But its the working present.

    1. Re:Can't agree by turbod · · Score: 1

      "GSM works well in environments like Iraq. You might live in some isolated part of the huge US of A where GSM sucks but Iraq is an urban and concentrated country. Most people live near the cities or the river valleys."

      From the maps and footage brought along by the war, Iraq is by no means urban. The desert dwellers are in near isolation already. Now the urban elite can get one more foothold over the desert dwellers simply because MCI needs to unload some equipment.

      Your urban elitism is really reaking in your post, too. GSMers always want the population to live in "urban areas in concentrations". Let me tell you, us "country bumpkins" want wireless too, and GSM isn't providing. But GSMers are more than happy to tell us to move to a city, or how theoretically great GSM is on paper even in large geographical areas. For some of us, this isn't feasible.

      "GSM does not suck. It allows clear voice transmissions and gives an acceptable data transfer rate (not for internet browsing but for email okay).

      Iraq does not need an expensive data network with bells on it. It needs one that works. And GSM works excellently - as Europe can testify."

      Again, I don't know where you are culling your data from. Call me from a desert repeater and keep talking for 4 or 5 hundred kilometers without interruption on a GSM system in Iraq, and I'll bless GSM as being more than a sorry ripoff for the Iraqis.

      And how can the data rate be acceptable if I can't browse comfortably? Data transmission is purely a luxury item, it should be nice to use...

      TurboD

  59. 2nd try (this time correctly formatted) by Johnny+Pissoff · · Score: 1

    Ok here goes again (next time I'll be sure to use "preview"):

    1. The amulet's back story was given on the latest episode of Angel when he aquired it. Guess you just have to buy into the, ahem, synergy (I can't believe I just used that word) and watch both shows.

    2. More like, let's cuddle.

    *snip*

    6. The spell Willow performed required that bitchin' ancient Slayer axe that Buffy only recently acquired. So that's why they didn't do it in "episode 3".

    7. That wasn't an uber-vamp that kicked Buffy's butt but an all too human Caleb, juiced up by the First.

    9. Amulet only recently aquired. See #1.

    10. Spike "died" too. Though his soul was purified by the amulet.

    12. Willow: So, what do we do now?
    Buffy: Everything I always wanted to do but couldn't because the heavy burden of being The Slayer weighed on me and me alone.

  60. Re:This should silence Iraqi reconstruction critic by Steve+Christ · · Score: 1
    Ah, now this must be a fake. GWB's not deep enough to even know the word 'bias'.

    "They gone done proved us right that American technology's betterer than their French technology. Yup, uh-huh. 'Cept they ain't using it, uh, no sir."

    George W. Bush is a moron. And as Christ, I know what I'm on about.

    Cheers

    Steve Christ, messiah and member of the proletariat

  61. europe is not the World by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    CDMA is the standard in the US, GSM is the standard in Europe. In countries that are neither the US nor Europe, things are somewhat divided. Most other countries by raw count use GSM, but some of the most technologically advanced ones use CDMA, which makes the number of sets in circulation fairly close. In particular, Japan and Korea both use CDMA, so unless the combined populations of Japan, Korean, and the US are removed from what's considered "the World", you can't call GSM a world standard.

    1. Re:europe is not the World by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Find me a country that uses CDMA in Europe, the Middle East, Africa or South America. "By raw numbers" is correct; in fact, it is very correct. CDMA countries are basically the U.S, Japan and Korea. GSM...rest of the world.

      I'd call GSM fairly pervasive.

    2. Re:europe is not the World by atallah · · Score: 1

      #1 - CDMA is NOT the sole standard in the US. Both AT&T and T-Mobile are GSM based carriers (AT&T also has their old TDMA network as well).

      #2 - Anyone who has travelled much will see that GSM *is* the world standard. I can take my phone and go just about anywhere in the world and i will either be able to simply roam with my existing SIM card or use a prepaid local card. - Try to do that with your CDMA phone.

  62. Not to mention GSM isn't even a world standard by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    Sure, it's a European standard, but unless Japan, Korea, and the U.S. are no longer part of the world, GSM is not a world standard. Especially since those three countries make up a huge percentage of high-tech business.

  63. Quit yer whinin' by EmagGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Ok, so MCI gets to build a GSM network in Iraq. Get over it - the reason that Sprint isn't doing it is because a) CDMA sucks monkey member and b) the US is more or less the only country on the planet that does NOT use GSM. It wouldn't make any sense to drop a CDMA network in Iraq when all of the surrounding countries use GSM. Also, there is already a lot of equipment for GSM in Iraq that can be reused (of course MCI will probably bill for new equipment even though they use the old stuff).

    The U.S. has a horrible track record of going with non-standards in order to try to lock out foreign competition - or at least make them build a different widget just to sell in the U.S.

    Here are some examples:

    U.S - TV uses NTSC, the rest of the world uses PAL, so TV and VCR makers have to make a completely different product to sell here.

    U.S. - HDTV over the air uses 8VSB (because of political lobbying), an inferior modulation method to COFDM, which the rest of the world uses because of its technical merit.

    U.S. - uses the English system of measure whereas the rest of the world uses the more intuitive metric system

    U.S. - drives on the wrong damn side of the road

    I'm sure there are hundreds, if not thousands of other examples..

    What I'd like to know is - how the *F* did the U.S. make such a logical and sound conclusion as to what network to use in Iraq?

    1. Re:Quit yer whinin' by Oddly_Drac · · Score: 1

      "U.S. - uses the English system of measure whereas the rest of the world uses the more intuitive metric system"

      Including England. I wasn't taught the imperial system at all, and generally you're expected to use SI notation for anything interesting and pick up imperial measurements if you're dealing with American Companies.

      Km/H is just wrong, though. ;)

      OD

      --
      Oddly Draconis
      Too cynical to live, too stubborn to die.
    2. Re:Quit yer whinin' by ebbe11 · · Score: 1
      U.S - TV uses NTSC, the rest of the world uses PAL, so TV and VCR makers have to make a completely different product to sell here.

      NTSC pre-dates PAL by a couple of years. By the time PAL was developed, NTSC was firmly entrenched in the US.

      U.S. - uses the English system of measure whereas the rest of the world uses the more intuitive metric system

      The English system pre-dates the metric system ;-) but I do agree that the metric system makes more sense.

      U.S. - drives on the wrong damn side of the road

      What? Have they switched? Last time I looked they drove on the right side of the road.

      --

      My opinion? See above.
    3. Re:Quit yer whinin' by connorbd · · Score: 1

      Actually, I believe Japan (and possibly China -- not too sure about that though) uses NTSC as well, though there's some slight differences in the way Japanese signals are handled that would make a picture from a Japanese signal look darker on an American TV.

    4. Re:Quit yer whinin' by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "What? Have they switched? Last time I looked they drove on the right side of the road."

      You haven't been to New Jersey lately, have you? :)

    5. Re:Quit yer whinin' by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "Km/H is just wrong, though. ;)"

      Yeah I'd much rather use m/s - the scaling isn't that bad... 100km/h is 27.8 or so m/s.

    6. Re:Quit yer whinin' by elvum · · Score: 1

      As any fule kno, the right side of the road is the wrong side of the road ;-)

    7. Re:Quit yer whinin' by ces · · Score: 1

      The U.S. has a horrible track record of going with non-standards in order to try to lock out foreign competition - or at least make them build a different widget just to sell in the U.S.

      Not really, usually it is more of a problem of one or more countries, usually European who don't want to adopt the same standard as the US. This is usually done to help their own industry or just so they can be different from the US.

      U.S - TV uses NTSC, the rest of the world uses PAL, so TV and VCR makers have to make a completely different product to sell here.

      NTSC was developed before PAL. Part of the reason for the difference was 60Hz powerline frequency standard in the US vs. the 50Hz standard in Europe. Don't forget SECAM as used in France either, it is even more of a headache to deal with than PAL vs. NTSC issues. Also remember that at the time these standards were developed consumer electronics was a domestic rather than global industry. For what it's worth NTSC is used in Asia and other parts of the world as well, just not Europe.

      U.S. - HDTV over the air uses 8VSB (because of political lobbying), an inferior modulation method to COFDM, which the rest of the world uses because of its technical merit.

      Again the US was the first to come up with a digital HDTV standard, at the time 8VSB was chosen the rest of the world was using analog HDTV.

      U.S. - drives on the wrong damn side of the road

      To a Brit maybe. Most of the world drives on the right just like the US. Only the UK, some former Commonwealth countries and Japan drive on the left.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    8. Re:Quit yer whinin' by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "Again the US was the first to come up with a digital HDTV standard, at the time 8VSB was chosen the rest of the world was using analog HDTV."

      This simply isn't true. Europe adopted COFDM long before the FCC decided to go with 8VSB. In fact, there was a R&O following an NPRM about a year after Europe adopted FM. Despite all of the technical evidence presented to the Commission demonstrating that COFDM was far and away a better choice, they decided to go with 8VSB. This was because broadcasters had already deployed a bunch of test stations using 8VSB - knowing full well that the standard had not yet been decided. We can thank about a dozen stations for the fact that we have an inferior HDTV system to the rest of the world. WPIX in New York and some station in Las Vegas, Nevada that was used for the NAB demo were the two most vocal and influential corporations responsible for the choice.

    9. Re:Quit yer whinin' by ces · · Score: 1

      Surely there must be some merits to 8VSB or it wouldn't have been adopted or lobbied for. Even if those merits are lower equipment costs for the broadcaster or the ablity to cram more data down the channel.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    10. Re:Quit yer whinin' by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      8VSB has a lower data capacity than COFDM as well as a higher required S/N ratio at the receiver end for recovery.

      The advantages of COFDM are that, with any coded orthogonal carrier system, you can cram many more carriers together in a tightly defined frequency spectrum and therefore carry much more data. Also, since COFDMs carriers are frequency modulated, the capture effect drastically improves reception.

      You ever notice that when you listen to an FM station, it's more or less either all there or all not? When you listen to AM, there's all kinds of interference on top of it all the time. That's essentially the same thing as COFDM vs. 8VSB, which is why there is no technical merit to using 8VSB for over-the-air HDTV.

      Here's the really interesting part - most every single data trasmission method used to day is based on AM. Any interference on top of the signal can and usually will cause a symbol error. That's why you rarely see higher orders of modulation than 16 in over the air and 64 in cable-driven systems. (Order 16 carries 4 bits per symbol and 64 carries 6 bits per symbol).

      A 9600 baud modem using 16-QAM will give you a datarate of 38400bps. Of course, telephone companies give you very narrow spectrum, about 3000Hz, which means you can only have about a 1200 baud modem. So, that's why there are distance restrictions on your 56k modem - it's probably a 1200 baud modem trying to run three orthogonal 256-QAM signals (8 bits per symbol per carrier). The reason you're limited to 53k in the US is because you aren't allowed to put enough power on the phone line to actually do 256-QAM (need a very high S/N ratio). So, they use 128 instead, giving you 7 instead of 8 bits per symbol, and therefore losing 3600 bits per second of throughput.

      But, I'm off on a tangent now, so I'll shut up :) But, the short story is that COFDM would have been a much better choice, and two corporations who didn't want to sacrifice about $15Mio between them together ruined over-the-air HDTV. I'm sure the cable industry probably had something to do with it, too...

      Did you know that Bill Gates lobbied to have HDTV limited to 640x480? He's still trying to take over HDTV and turn it into a Windows-only standard. His next goal is to have all televisions running WindowsCE.

    11. Re:Quit yer whinin' by ces · · Score: 1

      But, I'm off on a tangent now, so I'll shut up :) But, the short story is that COFDM would have been a much better choice, and two corporations who didn't want to sacrifice about $15Mio between them together ruined over-the-air HDTV. I'm sure the cable industry probably had something to do with it, too...

      There must have been something that made these companies decide to test with 8VSB. Was 8VSB transmission gear cheaper than COFDM? Did 8VSB have any advantages over COFDM for transmitting digital data? It does sound like 8VSB is very similar to data modems in modulation.

      I do recall either AT&T or Zenith had something to do with the lobbying for 8VSB as well. So it is entirely possible the selection of 8VSB was for serving narrow commercial intrests.

      I also remember there being big fights over square vs. rectangular pixels and progressive vs. interlaced scan.

      He's still trying to take over HDTV and turn it into a Windows-only standard. His next goal is to have all televisions running WindowsCE.

      WindowsCE seems to be doing about as well in television as elsewhere in the embedded market which is not very well at all. The embedded systems guys I know consider CE to be a joke and use linux when they don't use VXworks or QNX.

      --
      Happy Fun Ball is for external use only.
    12. Re:Quit yer whinin' by EmagGeek · · Score: 1

      "There must have been something that made these companies decide to test with 8VSB. Was 8VSB transmission gear cheaper than COFDM? Did 8VSB have any advantages over COFDM for transmitting digital data? It does sound like 8VSB is very similar to data modems in modulation."

      It could be that COFDM wasn't that mature back when hardware was first being developed (in the late 80's). Now that I think about the design implications some more, COFDM does require a more linear amplifier because the peak-to-average power ratio can be very high - as much as 8 to 10dB. That probably drives the cost of a transmitter up pretty significantly. However, to cover the same number of households with 8VSB requires a much higher average power, which also drives up cost.

      So I guess it's just a tradeoff there... If you want to shoot me an email, I'll follow up and see if I can find some old articles and filings with more info...

  64. Oh BS MAN! by SerpentMage · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Do you actually read the news?

    The US taxpayer is not footing the bill!

    1) Iraq has a mountain of debt to pay because as a result of the end of the war everyone is coming in with their bills. INCLUDING the US.

    2) The money laid out now by the US is coming back from oil revenue.

    3) The GSM standard is not just a French standard, but a worldwide standard. CDMA could have been a worldwide standard, but Qualcomm has its head stuck up its butt.

    Do you want to know what the main concern now is? That Iraq will be crushed under their debt. They did some stats and found out that when Iraq is pumping oil at its peak, that will only account for 20 billion dollars. That is not even close to being enough money to pay back everybody. And the concern is that it could turn into a world war 1 fiasco.

    --

    "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
    "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    1. Re:Oh BS MAN! by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      Iraq is pumping oil at its peak, that will only account for 20 billion dollars.

      Well, uh-oh. I guess US-Oil will just have to get in there and PUMP IT OUT QUICKER in order that the Iraqis can pay to rebuild what the USA has destroyed in 12 years of bombing and this last occupation-effort.

      Im sure they wont be too miffed at that idea...

      And the concern is that it could turn into a world war 1 fiasco
      Are you suggesting that the role of invader, in this case USA is going to return home, build up a massive army (check) and come back swinging? is the us going to invade poland? (canada?)

    2. Re:Oh BS MAN! by SerpentMage · · Score: 1

      I am not suggesting that when the USA goes home that they will build up a massive army.

      Ok, the US went in and cleaned house. Was this good or was this bad? I think only history will say if it was good or bad. Because until then everything is a debate.

      But moving on. What concerns me right now is that in the Middle East there is a quite a fundenmentalist movement. This is not to be underestimated. Sure they point out the US, but they might as well be pointing to Europe and North America at the same time. It is just the US happens to be the easiest to point at.

      The problem right now is that Iraq even will the oil might not have enough money. When Germany had to repay their debts they were degraded and controlled. Germans resented that. Result? You had a nutcase come into control of Germany. That ressentment could have so unknown outcomes in the Middle East. I am not saying Hitler Version 2.0, but I am saying something not predictable may occur...

      --

      "You can't make a race horse of a pig"
      "No," said Samuel, "but you can make very fast pig"
    3. Re:Oh BS MAN! by SubtleNuance · · Score: 1

      What concerns me right now is that in the Middle East there is a quite a fundamentalist movement. This is not to be underestimated

      Tolerance of anti-secularism is going to be a problem for America. It has (outside of the muslim community) the greatest "fundamentalist" movement in the world. Fundy Christians in America see this as Christ vs. Mohammad - they dont like these uppity Muslims. As our dear Princess said in SW: "the more you tighten your grip, the more systems will slip through your fingers". The more BushCo's neocons entrench themselves (as open allies with the christian right) the more they're going to be pressured into "Protecting the one true Faith in the USA". I see monotheastic religion -- in total -- as the problem. Religions rise in furvour for reasons outside my understanding, but history tells us they can grow into VERY big problems. I absolutely agree fundamentalist-muslims are a big problem, but almost as bad is the paralysis the USA is going to have in facing it. The *only* way to assault this problem is to address fundamental religion in general, less it will appear (even more obviously) that the USA is interested in attacking Muslims - but they cant do that without saying "fundy religions need to chill" (for lack of a better term) because it will unsettle BushCo's *own* ReliousPowerBase.

      bottom line: American religious leaders have been on the rise themselves, and are setting us *all* up for a Christian(/Jewish) vs. Muslims holy war. The Muslim leaders want it (overtly), but the rising Christian Right in America isnt exactly being forthcoming with this obviousness on Fox News. Unless a truly secular government can come to power in the USA, put the Christian Fundies in America in *their place* FIRST can they hope to address this Muslims vs. USA problem. Starting by withdrawing the $10billion in aid for Israelis to slaughter palestinians would be a good start. maybe the USA should appeal to the UN to have an INTERNATIONAL body mediate this problem... the USA can never (in its present form) be perceived as impartial (because they are not).

      I know this post is all over the place, my apologies for it being so scatterbrained (im at a loss at the moment) -- but Im trying to see this in the arc of 100-200 years, not 5-10. On this larger scale, Im thinking there are some serious problems to be dealt with. But I dont see too many people saying what is necessary: That all religion is an illusion - there are no Gods. We are the Masters of this planet, wholly responsible for its problems, and the only force capable of ever making things better. That the modern world will never move forward as long as ignorant people continue to allow themselves to be manipulated.

      As for HitlerV2.0, its as sure as anything... if one 'leader' were to unite fundie-muslims world-wide its going to be a f'ing problem. If this leader arises, and a equally neo-con christian fundy arises in the States, its going to be WWIII... because America too is ripe for its own jingoist jihad.

    4. Re:Oh BS MAN! by demonlapin · · Score: 1
      Fundamentalist Christians exert about zero influence in the neocon movement.

      Bush is assuredly NOT a neoconservative; he just has a lot of them working for him and likes some of their ideas. The most publicly known neocons are largely liberals (in the classical sense) who have drifted to the right on defense and economics. Think of them as what you would get if you convinced a libertarian that the state could do something useful other than guaranteeing contracts.

      That said, you're overblowing it. Christianity is not, in the main, undergoing a significant fundamentalist period (despite the popularity of Pentecostalism in the US), and it's not undergoing a holy-war period (except in a few scattered places, like N. Ireland). Do you really think that the people of the US are going to sign up to exterminate every Muslim? The US hasn't exterminated anyone since the American Indians, and we even developed a conscience about that in the late 1800's.

      In any case, Americans like their leaders religious - but not too religious. Jimmy Carter really weirded a lot of people out by saying the sorts of things that anyone who's ever lived in the South recognizes as ordinary, everyday talk about faith - like being "born again". Discomfort with the Religious Right and its influence on the Republicans helped push Clinton into office in the '92 elections (not that he needed much of a push).

      I assume that by "a truly secular government" you mean one headed by an atheist. Forget it; won't happen.

      Abandoning Israel won't happen either. They're not saints, but they are a democracy, and they aren't wrapping themselves in ball bearings and detonating themselves in Palestinian markets. That pretty well assures that the American public will support them - lots of people remember seeing dancing in the streets in Arab cities on 11 September 2001, and that's not an image that dies quickly.

      The American people see the UN for what it is - a nice place for diplomats to walk around with lots of untraceable money and pocket it. I'm not saying it does no good - the principle of it is fine, and some of the agencies do fantastic work (like WHO and UNICEF). But the General Assembly grants equal weight to Belize and Brazil, the council on human rights is chaired by Libya, and the Security Council has France with a veto and India without one. It's a fossilization of post-WWII structures, and it's outmoded. The US will continue to seek international support outside it, but we'd be mad as hatters to turn over the resolution of anything to the UN (just look up what the UN's peacekeepers did at Srebrenica).

      Anyway, you're way off on the role of religion. People who want to be led will follow someone who leads. Current times aside, a religious leader is often one of the least dangerous people they can follow. Exterminating religion isn't possible, and it isn't desirable. It gives structure, purpose, and meaning to lots of people's lives. It serves a wide variety of useful social purposes. The fact that some people think God wants them to play with rattlesnakes means that they and their religious leaders are, in fact, batshit crazy, but it doesn't mean Christianity should be wiped out. Likewise, the fact that some people think God wants them to blow themselves up and take out a few Jews (or Americans, or for the double bonus an American Jew) in the process means they and their religious leaders are, in fact, barking moonbat crazy, but it doesn't mean Islam should be wiped out.

      And that's the view from the heartland. Believe it or not, most of them care.

    5. Re:Oh BS MAN! by hymie3 · · Score: 1

      1) Iraq has a mountain of debt to pay because as a result of the end of the war everyone is coming in with their bills. INCLUDING the US.

      There is a UN resolution on the floor (authored by the US, of course) that basically states that Iraq doesn't owe money to countries that supported the former, presumably evil regime of Sadaam, naming specifically France and Russia.

      Of the western countries (excluding the US), France and Russia hold more Iraqi debt than all other countries combined.

      3) The GSM standard is not just a French standard, but a worldwide standard.

      Yes, but the French do use it. Iraq using CDMA would preclude them from using French companies to support and install infrastructure. Also, Iraq using CDMA would help to isolate the country from its neighbors (everyone else in the region (except Qatar? not sure) is using GSM) and become more reliant on CDMA countries (read: US).

    6. Re:Oh BS MAN! by frost22 · · Score: 1
      Of the western countries (excluding the US), France and Russia hold more Iraqi debt than all other countries combined.
      Misleading nonsense. The major claimant is Kuwait, which demands horrendous sums for war reparations (and the US would indeed do good to learn and apply the lessons of Versailles here). If you calculate out the Kuwaiti and Saudi claims, the remaining debt becomes quite manageable.
      --
      ...and here I stand, with all my lore, poor fool, no wiser than before.
    7. Re:Oh BS MAN! by hymie3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I wrote: Of the western countries (excluding the US),
      You wrote: Misleading nonsense. The major claimant is Kuwait, which

      The last time I checked, Suadia Arabia and Kuwait were not generally considered to be western countries.

      You again: If you calculate out the Kuwaiti and Saudi claims, the remaining debt becomes quite manageable.

      I agree. It *is* quite managable to a country with the resources of Iraq. Which is why I think that the US's push to cancel the 7 billion in debt Iraq it owes to Russia (and a similar figure to France) to be more of a slap against the interests who were against the US deposing Sadaam than it is of a financial boost to Iraq.

      Seven billion US dollars is nothing to the US, and not that big of a deal to France (less than one percent of their annual revenues), but to Russia, who only brings in $46billion a year, seven billion is a lot of money. Talk about the US twisting the knife.

    8. Re:Oh BS MAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So are you arguing that the US deciding that Iraq will use GSM is biased in favor of the US or not?

    9. Re:Oh BS MAN! by hymie3 · · Score: 1


      So are you arguing that the US deciding that Iraq will use GSM is biased in favor of the US or not?

      Huh? Dude, are you looking for serious statements from a /. post? I'm just here for the karma. (hey, at least i'm honest)
      </smiley>

  65. R: Other 'failures' by gbjbaanb · · Score: 1
    You think that's bad - Joe Aherne produces critically acclaimed, truly excellent series, (with Jack Davenport) but they never get past series 1.

    This Life just stopped, and Ultraviolet should have a UN reslution demanding a second series :-)

    Strange won't see the light of day again either. Its a disgrace!!

    1. Re:R: Other 'failures' by unapersson · · Score: 1

      > You think that's bad - Joe Aherne produces
      > critically acclaimed, truly excellent series,
      > (with Jack Davenport) but they never get past
      > series 1.

      > This Life just stopped, and Ultraviolet should
      > have a UN reslution demanding a second series :-)

      I could have sworn This Life had more than one series and it finished years ago (in the 90's).

  66. Ask Slashdot: by The+J+Kid · · Score: 1

    Dear Slashdot,

    I'm a 15-year old Canadian Kid and I had a video of me doing my Darth Maul moves posted on the internet.
    Allthough that actually sucked, it did get me lot's of dosh.

    Any idea's to move the whole franchise to a higher level?

    --
    Moderation: +4. Modded 70% Funny and 30% Overrated. 100% Saturated.
  67. From the Joss Whedon interview... by BlisterMackwell · · Score: 1
    Joss says,
    "I think the mistakes I've made in my own life have plagued me, but they're pretty boring mistakes: I committed a series of grisly murders in the eighties and I think I once owned a Wilson-Phillips Album."
    I enjoy employing a little black humor now-and-again too, but my personal rule is to not say things I wouldn't want to be asked about in a court of law.
  68. SMG isn't the poster child... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ah, that would that be the AnOrexics Anonymous poster, SMG being thEIr poster child

    It should really be Paula Abdul. Have you SEEN her lately?
  69. GSM has lotsa radiation by Hemi+Rodner · · Score: 1

    I haven't thoroughly verified it, but from the papers I read, GSM always got a lot of radiation. And from the tests I did, GSM made the worst interference - my GSM phone causes problems in every audio-based device.

    Unlike that, CDMA doesn't make any interference.

    --
    hemi
  70. Buffy, the Emasculator? by miletus · · Score: 1
    Don't get me wrong, I enjoy the show, the character development, the witticisms, etc., but is it just me or do all the male characters seem emasculated? Even bad-boy spike had to get a chip taken out of his head to get his b*lls back, and was mostly a boy-toy for Buffy until the very end. Even the strong males like Angel essentially do whatever Buffy tells them. Forget about Xander and Giles -- you half expect them to start dressing like French maids, or something.

    I'm also surprised the show didn't get attacked more by the Christian Right: good demons, black magic, flagrante lesbianism -- to say nothing of an evil, woman-hating preacher as the worst villian!

    Of course, if the show really wanted to be subversive, the characters would all be overweight and pimply.

    1. Re:Buffy, the Emasculator? by Hepkat · · Score: 1

      would YOU watch a show w/ overweight pimply girls, even if the writing was good?
      I don't care what people say, there is something very valuable in appearances...

  71. 16 is legal!!!!! by screwthemoderators · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Goddamit 16 better stay the age of consent. After all, if the girl can drive a car... Also, who needs to re-live the realities of menial jobs and real life disillusionment? Its TV- Its suppose to be fantasy and escape- Morality and Social commentary should be given in small, digestible portions The last thing America needs is a show preaching self-righteously to the great unwashed masses. Give me clever, irreverent humor any day- after all, the show was born out of a simple joke- a horror movie genre with a 'slayer' named 'Buffy?' ;]

  72. Flamebait?! by uradu · · Score: 2, Informative

    Don't anyone get blinded by the facts now. After some quick googling, pages such as this will easily be found:

    http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2001/gulf.war/facts/gu lfwar

    Check at the bottom, under "The Cost". While Kuwait and Saudi Arabia paid the lion's share, I just listed France and Germany (plus Japan) because they're the ones being daemonized by the US, even though they contributed more financially to the first Gulf War than the US.

  73. Re:So long, Buffster. Thanks for all the writing. by JagRoth · · Score: 1

    > Notice that no one on Buffy wore catsuits.
    Right, nobody wore catsuits. Except for the episode where Cordelia wore a catsuit for Halloween. No catsuits except for that one. So, very few catsuits then, right.

  74. Ewww by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How old is she really? She looks like she's 50.

    I think the reason the slashbots like her is that she has the body of a prepubescent boy.

  75. GET A JOB by aws910 · · Score: 1

    I don't know if you realize this, but you wrote what looks like a dissertation, about a TV show! Am I the only one that sees something wrong with this? It's shows like this(and those boring "reality" shows) that remind me of why it's so cheap to buy a TV anymore. Maybe if I were 12 again, I would not care what was on tv, as long as it kept me away from my homework. I ask of you, Where has the quality entertainment gone? Who stole it??

  76. my opinion by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i never found the buffy show very exciting. it just seemed like all the rest of WB's crappy line-up. it has so many lame shows

  77. It gets worse, Xander has a spin-off by doublem · · Score: 1

    You didn't see it because he was still in shock form the whole battle.

    Besides, you'll see plenty of him angsting over her death in his spinoff. "Xander, the one eyed demon hunter."

    "A campy send up of Buffy, the Exorcist and Hell House all rolled up into one, as Xander (Nicholas Brendon) roams the Earth, seeking a way to revive his murdered love."

    --
    "Live Free or Die." Don't like it? Then keep out of the USA
  78. GSM and two carriers by kruczkowski · · Score: 1

    Not too many people know this, but for a country to licence GSM, they need at minimum two GSM carriers.

    This is why you have T-Mobile and AT&T in the states.

    Wonder what the second carrier will be in Iraq?

    --
    hmm... for fun I enjoy launching DDoS attacks against 127.87.42.5
  79. Buffay the Vampire Layer by DoNotTauntHappyFunBa · · Score: 1

    There is a Friends episode in which Phoebe's twin sister Ursula is working as a porn star (under Phoebe's name) in such movies as "Buffay the Vampire Layer." There is even a scene from the movie.

    --
    Well, hey, I didn't spend all those years playing Dungeons and Dragons and not learn a little something about courage.
  80. Jish interview (cause the link seems to be broken) by torklugnutz · · Score: 1

    Here's my interview with the "Star Wars Kid". It took place on May 13, 2003, 4:45 pm PST, was translated from French, and most questions were recommended by Andy.

    Female answers: Hello?
    Jish: Can I speak with Ghyslain please?
    Female: One moment ...
    Female: It won't be long
    Jish: Ok, thanks ...
    G: Yes, hello?
    Jish: Ghyslain?
    G: Yes.
    Jish: My name is Jish and I am calling you from San Francisco, CA and I would like to interview you. Do you speak English too?
    G: Only a little bit.
    Jish: Well, I will try to speak in French, but I'll apologize in advance since my French isn't perfect.
    G: Oh, that's ok.
    Jish: The interview is concerning your martial arts video.
    G: Mm hmm.
    Jish: Do you know that over 500,000 people have viewed your video?
    G: Yes, I know.
    Jish: When you made the video, did you think this many people would be viewing it?
    G: No, I really never anticipated that.
    Jish: How did the video end up on the web?
    G: Actually, it was a mistake. The cassette was left in the studio and someone put it on the internet.
    Jish: Then, I guess it wasn't a friend who did this, more of an enemy?
    G: More or less. It was someone I knew.
    Jish: I only have a few more questions ... there was something yellow on the floor in your video, what was that?
    G: It was probably something left behind in the studio from a previous session. I really don't remember what it was.
    Jish: Some people have taken your video and have added some Star Wars special effects, have you seen these?
    G: Yes, I have seen some.
    Jish: What is your opinion of these videos?
    G: From what I saw, they look very well-made. It's surprising to see what people have done with a video that wasn't meant to be seen. It's interesting.
    Jish: Do you have a website?
    G: Personally, no.
    Jish: What are your favourite websites?
    G: I am someone who is really into computers/computing, therefore my favourite sites are the ones from the different companies involved ... nothing that I visit regularly.
    Jish: Do you also read weblogs?
    G: No.
    Jish: We know that you probably have a laptop, cell phone, Palm and other gadgets like that. Do you have any other favourite gadgets that you would like to buy, perhaps something like an iPod?
    G: For the moment, I don't have plans to buy any gadgets, but sometime soon I'd like to get an iPod.
    Jish: Do you use a Mac or a PC?
    G: At home, I use a PC, but I really like the world of Macintosh. It's what I use at school.
    Jish: Then, if you used an iPod would you get the PC or Mac version?
    G: Probably, I'd get the PC version.
    Jish: Thank you very much for answering my questions. I'd like to send you an e-mail, what is your e-mail address?
    G: ____@______.___
    Jish: Well, thank you very much and good night.
    G: Good night.

    --
    Often in Error, Never in Doubt.
  81. Re:This should silence Iraqi reconstruction critic by Neurotensor · · Score: 1

    our beloved USA-homegrown CDMA didn't win out in Iraq after all

    Hey, I'm one of the US self-bias allegers and I'm angry CDMA isn't being used in Iraq.

    In Australia we are pretty much stuck with crappy GSM, although CDMA has a presence in those remote areas where there are long distances to cover and the crappiness of GSM prevents it from being used. I mean, seriously dudes, code-division craps on time-division and every engineer who understands the difference will tell you that.

    CDMA is one of the better US inventions and yet we can't convince policy makers to roll it out. I can understand why it's tough to do when GSM has a strong foothold, it costs so much to replace a whole network. But the coalition would have wiped out every last bit of telecommunications infrastructure, and what they had probably wasn't that great anyway. The least we owe the Iraqis is a decent mobile phone system. The kind I wish for myself.

    Yes, I'm done ;)

  82. Re:So long, Buffster. Thanks for all the writing. by Equinox · · Score: 1

    But they had teenage lesbian witches!

  83. Including... by Trillan · · Score: 1

    ...that the final episode was filmed a full year before the end of the series!