You're talking about devices and their output in your analogies. The output that you're addressing video, and the device outputting that is a video card. You argue that "graphics" in video games today are "good enough," and I'm telling you that you're neglecting a lot of parameters that most certainly aren't up to "good enough" standards yet.
There are plenty of visual elements in many games that could be vastly improved, and significantly contribute to gameplay and immersion. To argue that developers just don't care about those features despite trying their best to squeeze out every last drop of performance from outdated console hardware is hardly insightful.
You're pointing to some fairly invalid analogies. Printer and camera resolutions deal exclusively in image definition. Video cards don't just deal in image resolution, or image quality. They also deal in framerates, view distances, level of detail scaling, and all manner of other concerns, half of which absolutely are not at "good enough" levels. Particularly when dealing with game consoles.
You're really reaching here, and you aren't even addressing the issues introduced by the medium on 802.11 connections. You're advocating the use of a technology that makes tradeoffs in reliability and security to gain mobility to connect a stationary device that is adjacent to the router. That's not ever going to sound smart.
That's a pretty dishonest argument to make. You're saying that if both 802.11 and wired Ethernet can saturate the Internet connection supporting the network, then there's no real reason to use wired Ethernet. If that's as far as you're going to extend your argument, then there's no real reason to use 802.11 either. Of course, you seem to forget that some people do transfer data between hosts on their local network, and that 802.11 features layer 1 and 2 concerns that just don't exist with full duplex wired Ethernet.
Give it a jack that accepts 8P8C, and an HDBaseT PHY. The spec allows daisy chaining, so if you could provide power from the TV, and chain the 100 Mbps Ethernet channel through the TV to the device while using the device as the video source, then that would be the only cable you'd need to plug in other than those for input devices. Bundle the whole thing up in a flexible roll-up keyboard with a tracking surface, and you'd be set in one package.
As a person interviewing for an IT position at a large U.S. university, I'm thrilled to hear that the hassle of maintaining sane network policies won't be part of the job.
Of course they want "power and control." If you were held responsible and accountable for a system, reasonably or not, then you would want "power and control" over it as well.
Anyone can build a business around any concept, regardless of value or worth. Success isn't necessarily a testament to the value of the product or its constituent elements. This is a good example of that.
Of course we do. It's imperative in today's business environment to deploy file transfer protocols based on integrated models that work in the cloud with compliance. Just imagine what FTP was like before it had compliance in the cloud. I don't get how anyone got anything done.
Ping certainly could provide information about/delay/ past the CMTS, assuming that the delay between the source system and the CMTS is constant and predictable, but you cannot know where the target CM is located past the CMTS merely by examining delay from an external source. One interface on a CMTS can provide service to hundreds of homes, many miles apart, so you have absolutely no way of knowing whether two CMs to which the measured delay is identical are in neighboring houses, or equally far from the CMTS in opposite directions. Additionally, the network past the CMTS is a pure broadcast medium, meaning that congestion introduced by any of dozens of customers locked on the same frequency can introduce variations in delay. There are simply too many interfering factors to derive location from delay with an accuracy any better than the methods available today.
What you can narrow it down to, if you're conducting your delay measurements from an external network, is that the IP address/might/ be leased to a CM that's somewhere within a radius of 20 miles from the CMTS. Then you need to figure out where the CMTS is.
This kind of accuracy is already being achieved by regular location databases.
No. Not realistically possible even with a single CMTS feeding a single neighborhood.
Completely impossible is telling your location apart from another customer on the same CMTS, in the same addressing pool, topologically located as far from the CMTS as you are, but in the opposite direction. Unless your electrons carry a compass.
How far do you think that this "average bloke" on a cable modem is from his CMTS? How far in any other arbitrary direction do you think that another "average bloke" with a CM in the same addressing pool is from the same CMTS?
.. Or that one or more of the routers in the path are doing something more important than sending Time Exceeded messages, or that something big and bursty hit one of the pipes, or that the message yielded to higher priority traffic, or any of the many other things that introduce unpredictable delay across the Internet.
The entire premise is fairly absurd in that, aside from the obvious shortcomings, it completely ignores that A) delay doesn't indicate direction, and B) most ISP access services reach at least 2 miles in any direction, and often 10 miles and more. So how does this guy propose to locate an individual when the last layer 3 hop in the path is a CMTS serving a neighborhood 10 miles to the North, and another neighborhood 10 miles to the South?
An MSO customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the MSO could just as easily be network customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the network.
".. offered up as the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device."
Can't we go back to the days when advertising was merely dishonest? What do they achieve by lying about an accomplishment that does not impact the experience of the product?
Yes, of course you would. Until you had to fill the huge gaps left in budgets that rely on that extra money you pay for your fuel. It isn't magically more expensive because it's consumed in the United Kingdom, you know.
But, please, continue to complain and make a fool of yourself.
That's a fairly outrageous claim. If you're changing an integral part of the product, then what you're doing isn't scaling the economy of manufacturing, but rather manufacturing a different product. Economy of scale isn't magic, no. It's being able to move quantities sufficient to negotiate with suppliers for better volume deals, and being able to make large capital expenditures that lower manufacturing costs.
Is this the third or fourth article explaining exactly the same thing to make it to the front page? How many more "stories" featuring rearrangements of previously reported circumstances are we supposed to sit through?
Slashdot Mirror
You're talking about devices and their output in your analogies. The output that you're addressing video, and the device outputting that is a video card. You argue that "graphics" in video games today are "good enough," and I'm telling you that you're neglecting a lot of parameters that most certainly aren't up to "good enough" standards yet.
There are plenty of visual elements in many games that could be vastly improved, and significantly contribute to gameplay and immersion. To argue that developers just don't care about those features despite trying their best to squeeze out every last drop of performance from outdated console hardware is hardly insightful.
You're pointing to some fairly invalid analogies. Printer and camera resolutions deal exclusively in image definition. Video cards don't just deal in image resolution, or image quality. They also deal in framerates, view distances, level of detail scaling, and all manner of other concerns, half of which absolutely are not at "good enough" levels. Particularly when dealing with game consoles.
Could your company make money today without IT? Chances are good that if there's a genuine need for IT staffing, it couldn't.
You're really reaching here, and you aren't even addressing the issues introduced by the medium on 802.11 connections. You're advocating the use of a technology that makes tradeoffs in reliability and security to gain mobility to connect a stationary device that is adjacent to the router. That's not ever going to sound smart.
That's a pretty dishonest argument to make. You're saying that if both 802.11 and wired Ethernet can saturate the Internet connection supporting the network, then there's no real reason to use wired Ethernet. If that's as far as you're going to extend your argument, then there's no real reason to use 802.11 either. Of course, you seem to forget that some people do transfer data between hosts on their local network, and that 802.11 features layer 1 and 2 concerns that just don't exist with full duplex wired Ethernet.
Give it a jack that accepts 8P8C, and an HDBaseT PHY. The spec allows daisy chaining, so if you could provide power from the TV, and chain the 100 Mbps Ethernet channel through the TV to the device while using the device as the video source, then that would be the only cable you'd need to plug in other than those for input devices. Bundle the whole thing up in a flexible roll-up keyboard with a tracking surface, and you'd be set in one package.
Now we just need HDBaseT TVs.
They're units of measure that cost a whole lot of money to maintain, for no good reason. I'd say that makes it seriously broken.
As a person interviewing for an IT position at a large U.S. university, I'm thrilled to hear that the hassle of maintaining sane network policies won't be part of the job.
Of course they want "power and control." If you were held responsible and accountable for a system, reasonably or not, then you would want "power and control" over it as well.
Yeah, or some sort of service billing itself as being "unlimited."
Oh wait.
Anyone can build a business around any concept, regardless of value or worth. Success isn't necessarily a testament to the value of the product or its constituent elements. This is a good example of that.
Of course we do. It's imperative in today's business environment to deploy file transfer protocols based on integrated models that work in the cloud with compliance. Just imagine what FTP was like before it had compliance in the cloud. I don't get how anyone got anything done.
Ping certainly could provide information about /delay/ past the CMTS, assuming that the delay between the source system and the CMTS is constant and predictable, but you cannot know where the target CM is located past the CMTS merely by examining delay from an external source. One interface on a CMTS can provide service to hundreds of homes, many miles apart, so you have absolutely no way of knowing whether two CMs to which the measured delay is identical are in neighboring houses, or equally far from the CMTS in opposite directions. Additionally, the network past the CMTS is a pure broadcast medium, meaning that congestion introduced by any of dozens of customers locked on the same frequency can introduce variations in delay. There are simply too many interfering factors to derive location from delay with an accuracy any better than the methods available today.
What you can narrow it down to, if you're conducting your delay measurements from an external network, is that the IP address /might/ be leased to a CM that's somewhere within a radius of 20 miles from the CMTS. Then you need to figure out where the CMTS is.
This kind of accuracy is already being achieved by regular location databases.
No. Not realistically possible even with a single CMTS feeding a single neighborhood.
Completely impossible is telling your location apart from another customer on the same CMTS, in the same addressing pool, topologically located as far from the CMTS as you are, but in the opposite direction. Unless your electrons carry a compass.
How does this get +5, Interesting?
How far do you think that this "average bloke" on a cable modem is from his CMTS? How far in any other arbitrary direction do you think that another "average bloke" with a CM in the same addressing pool is from the same CMTS?
.. Or that one or more of the routers in the path are doing something more important than sending Time Exceeded messages, or that something big and bursty hit one of the pipes, or that the message yielded to higher priority traffic, or any of the many other things that introduce unpredictable delay across the Internet.
The entire premise is fairly absurd in that, aside from the obvious shortcomings, it completely ignores that A) delay doesn't indicate direction, and B) most ISP access services reach at least 2 miles in any direction, and often 10 miles and more. So how does this guy propose to locate an individual when the last layer 3 hop in the path is a CMTS serving a neighborhood 10 miles to the North, and another neighborhood 10 miles to the South?
Ah, Slashdot. Where pointless and petty feuds between nobodies is front page material.
An MSO customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the MSO could just as easily be network customer viewing live TV through a stream provided by the network.
".. offered up as the first-ever live TV broadcasts available for streaming on a portable media device."
Can't we go back to the days when advertising was merely dishonest? What do they achieve by lying about an accomplishment that does not impact the experience of the product?
Very insightful. You should submit this ground-breaking research for publication.
Yes, of course you would. Until you had to fill the huge gaps left in budgets that rely on that extra money you pay for your fuel. It isn't magically more expensive because it's consumed in the United Kingdom, you know.
But, please, continue to complain and make a fool of yourself.
That's a fairly outrageous claim. If you're changing an integral part of the product, then what you're doing isn't scaling the economy of manufacturing, but rather manufacturing a different product. Economy of scale isn't magic, no. It's being able to move quantities sufficient to negotiate with suppliers for better volume deals, and being able to make large capital expenditures that lower manufacturing costs.
Got mine last week, thanks.
Is this the third or fourth article explaining exactly the same thing to make it to the front page? How many more "stories" featuring rearrangements of previously reported circumstances are we supposed to sit through?