Thanks man.:-) But I will survive. I generally have decent karma, so taking a single and unfair "Flamebait" mod (my first I think) won't do that much harm.
Besides, it might be an honest mistake. I agree that some moderators tend to treat "Flamebait" and "Disagree" as the same thing, but it could also just be an honest mistake in this case. Someone being just a bit too quick with the mouse, and accidentally clicking the wrong vote. What/. could to to improve the situation would be to make all votes editable for 1-2 minutes after they are submitted.:-)
2. as in freely available and obtainable no matter who paid for it
That is how "free" software works. Someone did pay for it (either with time, money or both) but they are making it freely available to you and everybody else.
In that respect, the "free" roads are exactly the same. They are freely available to anyone who wishes to use them, regardless of who paid for them.
I pay an average of 52% taxes, with a 67% tax on the "last dollar". After which I pay 25 VAT ("sales tax") on pretty much everything I Buy with the exception of my house and my children's daycare. Don't even get me started on my car, which is taxed by more than 180% !
And you know what? I am happy to pay my fair share. Hell, I would pay a couple of percent more if I wasn't the only one to do so.
The problem is that the richer you get the easier it also gets to dodge taxes. The more corporations and shell companies you can wrap around your spendings the easier it is to avoid taxes. And it just so happens that most wealthy people use such schemes to avoid paying their fair share.
Yes, really. They do.
So the guy on the floor can't help but pay his fair share while the top directors never seem to do the same.
You may try to claim that only "people who have less" are bitching. But reality is: they're the only ones who have anything to bitch about. Because they can't ever use the same clever schemes to avoid their taxes (due to the simple lack of having their own full-time accountant and very large sums of cash).
The fact that "people who have less" are the ones bitching does not mean they don't have a case. Correlation != causation.
Based on this, can we not say that the signal is decoded and then re-encoded using a different standard (hence Transcoded)?:-)
Anyway, it would seem we mostly agree on the technical bits and pieces.
I don't know if the system is "over-engineered" having an ARM with 2Gb of memory. But the software in the device isn't a static firmware. Instead Apple uploads the software to it (from the Mac it is connected to) each time it is initialized. This makes the design more flexible as Apple can update the "firmware" bit just as they would with any other OSX update. It provides Apple with the technical capability to change the vendor-lock-in factor associated with the Lightning port standard (in case anyone ever reverse-engineered the current ones) and it also makes it possible for them to support future HDMI features which have yet to be released.
While you may perceive it as "over-engineered" it does provide a number of clear benefits for Apple. And if they can get the consumer to pony up an additional 4 or even 10 USD for the device then why the hell not? (I am not advocating for this approach - I am saying I understand the benefits from Apples point of view).
The ability to mess around with the vendor lock-in parts, and update the HDMI standard as needed, are very clear benefits with this design. There may be others as well.
It is correct that HDMI generally transmits uncompressed video, but it is absolutely not raw (or RAW) and it is encoded (as virtually all digital signals are, especially audio and video)...:-)
Also, "grids of pixels" are not transmitted. I have no idea who told you that but don't listen to them/him/her. In a HDMI video signal, one line is defined as the "active" line, and its content is then transmitted in chunks of 32 pixels (during the "TMDS Video Data Period") untill the line is complete and the next line can begin. A lot of control data is transmitted between the chunks of video data, and most of it has an ECC parity for error-correction.
The audio-portion of the signal is also encoded, with whatever encoding the source has chosen to use - lossless or lossy compression is supported and multi-channel audio over HDMI is typically encoded with lossy compression.
On top of it all, the signal is often encrypted using DRM technology.
So yes - it is encoded, supplied with ECC parity, and mixed with a whole lot of other information as well. .
I am no expert on video compression but I would say: Because upscaling video always produces artifacts?
To me it sounds like they are upscaling a Desktop video signal (likely the 1600x900 they keep referring to) to 1080p. Last I checked any kind of upscaling produces artifacts...
No, absolutely not. Then again, the the device has 2 Gb of RAM, not 2 GB. Or in more clear terms: 256 MB. They just don't know how to read the numbers on the chips properly.
And it is not only the DRM, it is (likely) converting one digital video encoding to another - also called Transcoding.
The electronics involved have nothing to do with AirPlay, and this is not "news" in any way. Sorry to ruin excitement and conspiracy theories...:-)
I am willing to bet serious money that all these chips do is decode whatever proprietary protocol Apple uses for transmitting video over the Lightning port to a standard HDCP protected HDMI signal. This is needed because the Lightning port has no other way of transmitting the video - and this has been clear from the day Apple revealed the Lightning port to the world. It is really just a high-speed 8-pin serial connector. Nothing else.
In addition the chips probably try to introduce a classic vendor lock-in factor, making it hard for 3rd party vendors to provide similar cables and accessories for the Lightning port without paying royalties to Apple (read: legal tech-extortion).
Also, the scaling-problems mentioned are without a doubt due to the screen-mirror scheme involved. If they streamed an actual 1080p video file directly, the result would likely be very different.
The speculation in the article is so far from reality it almost hurts... They get points for taking it apart and all, but they could have reached the correct conclusion merely by reading up on the existing specs of the Lightning port (if they had bothered to add a bit of digital-video knowledge from Wikipedia that is).
First damn sensible post I've read in this thread.
I can't believe some of the lame-ass "advice" given here.
MAC whitelisting? Really? What is next - using WEP encryption?
If things are as you say, you have been seriously targeted. Get the authorities involved to ensure you can document that traffic from your connection may have been generated by a 3rd party outsider. They may do nothing other than file a report but that could become a lifesaver for you later on.
Then switch to WPA2 (only - not mixed!) And change your key twice a week for a month or two. Breaking such a key is not trivial so if your intruder is still there you are really left with only two answers. Either your own hosts have been compromised and the key can be extracted that way, or the intruder is the NSA or some other gov.agency.
Team up with a business partner who has better ideas and is more business-savvy than you. Such people typically can't code anything. Together you can achieve what none of you could have done alone.
Any software will do really. Something CPU intensive would be best but even in idle mode that server will use several orders of magnitude more power than a modern server with the same capability.
Put it in your living room and use it as a heater.
Way wrong. They are likely getting a percentage of the settlements or they are hired in-house by the IP firm who holds the patent.
No small-time patent troll will start throwing money at lawyers on a per-hour basis. Only the big ones with loads of cash and a proven track record for their parents can afford that approach.
Fair enough. And nice to hear from an actual patent lawyer here.
However, as a rule of thumb I still believe my suggestion stands. Simply ignoring letters from lawyers generally creates more problems than it solves.
Trolls - regardless of industry (entertainment, patents, whatever) - tend to toss the small cases creating the highest workload. Asking for further information, origin of the information/data, instructions on how to proceed to solve the matter without paying, etc. is also likely to make them go away.
The only legal advice I am giving here, is "Always answer a letter sent to you by a lawyer" - because a bunch of people suggested just "waiting it out".
I have not suggested he/she should not contact a lawyer, nor am I giving specific legal advice on what to do with the case.
I believe my suggestion remains: Always answer letters sent by lawyers, and make sure they are either useless or stalling. This will hold true no matter if you contact a lawyer yourself or not - and it should not make any actual difference in your case since you have basically done nothing other than answering their letters with useless or case-stalling responses.
I don't believe that constitutes "lousy legal advice". The lousy advice is the suggestion made by others to ignore the letter and "ride it out". Go call those post lousy instead, eh?
And for the record: Yes, do contact a lawyer. I never said not to.
You should always answer a lawyer who sends you a letter. Even a troll. Just make sure your answer is either useless to them or can be used to stall the case.
For example you could send a letter explaining that you don't believe your company infringes on said patent amd ask for clarification on why they believe otherwise.
When you get an answer to that, your next letter should be a series of questions asking how they know stuff about your company. Ask them where they got their information from, and ask them to provide a full report on all data collected about you or the company. They may very well be legally obligated to respond to inquiries about collected data.
Finally, ask them for instructions on how they believe you can stop infringing the patent. Explain you have no desire to infringe on it, that you believe you are indeed not, but that you would be happe to evaluate any suggestions they might have regarding ways to ensure the alleged infringement.
Each time wait 7-9 days before responding.
If they get difficult ask for a personal meeting at your office and make sure to explain how busy you are when you apoligize for being unavailable until... approx 9-17 days later.
By the time you are done with this the patent expiation date will be closer and they will have wasted a ton of time. Also should the case ever get to trial you can show that you have honestly tried to cooperate in any way possible (short on paying for the infringement you don't believe is taking place).
It is almost as much fun as fooling nigerian scammers.
Who or what the fuck is a JSTOR? Would it kill the summary writer to explain the acronym?
Most people know what it is, because of the Swartz-case. So you missed it - fine - but rambling about it on a geek-site like/. is hardly the way to go.
My bank has public facing computers. If I were to find and exploit a way to access other people's banking data, I'm pretty sure there'd be hell to pay.
I'm pretty sure the US and UK both have laws that would prevent access beyond your authorization. I'd be astonished if Canada did not have similar legislation.
Your bank gets scanned several times an hour (if not several times a minute) by half the blackhats and scriptkiddies of the globe, and nobody in the banks IT dept. would be dumb enough to bitch about it, because they know its natural on a public-facing system.
Simply scanning your bank and reporting your findings to them, is unlikely to get you in "hell"... unless you act like a dick about it.
You should't scan them without permission - off course. That is not up for debate. But a scan is not the same as gaining - and indeed exploiting - unauthorized access. The school in question here clearly overreacted.
Regarding legislation, you may be right if the authorities decide to make a case out of it. But then again, they'll make a case out of pretty much anything if they are on a rampage. In the US you'll get your ass thrown in jail and/or fined millions just for violating a TOS. Or face 30 years for copying publicly-available data created with tax dollars (ahemm, Swartz?). The fact that such shit happens in the real world really doesn't make it right.
Defining a "scan" as a "crime" is silly at best. Realistically it is an abuse of power and a danger to a free society.
Slashdot Mirror
Thanks man. :-) But I will survive. I generally have decent karma, so taking a single and unfair "Flamebait" mod (my first I think) won't do that much harm.
Besides, it might be an honest mistake. I agree that some moderators tend to treat "Flamebait" and "Disagree" as the same thing, but it could also just be an honest mistake in this case. Someone being just a bit too quick with the mouse, and accidentally clicking the wrong vote. What /. could to to improve the situation would be to make all votes editable for 1-2 minutes after they are submitted. :-)
- Jesper
I respectfully believe you are mistaken here...
Your ad. 2 should actually be:
2. as in freely available and obtainable no matter who paid for it
That is how "free" software works. Someone did pay for it (either with time, money or both) but they are making it freely available to you and everybody else.
In that respect, the "free" roads are exactly the same. They are freely available to anyone who wishes to use them, regardless of who paid for them.
- Jesper
Because someone with mod-points decided that "I disagree" = "Flamebait"?
Happens all the time around here; though I think it is actually my first Flamebait mod :-)
And yes, you are correct, it was absolutely not intended as Flamebait.
- Jesper
I pay an average of 52% taxes, with a 67% tax on the "last dollar". After which I pay 25 VAT ("sales tax") on pretty much everything I Buy with the exception of my house and my children's daycare. Don't even get me started on my car, which is taxed by more than 180% !
And you know what? I am happy to pay my fair share. Hell, I would pay a couple of percent more if I wasn't the only one to do so.
The problem is that the richer you get the easier it also gets to dodge taxes. The more corporations and shell companies you can wrap around your spendings the easier it is to avoid taxes. And it just so happens that most wealthy people use such schemes to avoid paying their fair share.
Yes, really. They do.
So the guy on the floor can't help but pay his fair share while the top directors never seem to do the same.
You may try to claim that only "people who have less" are bitching. But reality is: they're the only ones who have anything to bitch about. Because they can't ever use the same clever schemes to avoid their taxes (due to the simple lack of having their own full-time accountant and very large sums of cash).
The fact that "people who have less" are the ones bitching does not mean they don't have a case. Correlation != causation.
- Jesper
Based on this, can we not say that the signal is decoded and then re-encoded using a different standard (hence Transcoded)? :-)
Anyway, it would seem we mostly agree on the technical bits and pieces.
I don't know if the system is "over-engineered" having an ARM with 2Gb of memory. But the software in the device isn't a static firmware. Instead Apple uploads the software to it (from the Mac it is connected to) each time it is initialized. This makes the design more flexible as Apple can update the "firmware" bit just as they would with any other OSX update. It provides Apple with the technical capability to change the vendor-lock-in factor associated with the Lightning port standard (in case anyone ever reverse-engineered the current ones) and it also makes it possible for them to support future HDMI features which have yet to be released.
While you may perceive it as "over-engineered" it does provide a number of clear benefits for Apple. And if they can get the consumer to pony up an additional 4 or even 10 USD for the device then why the hell not? (I am not advocating for this approach - I am saying I understand the benefits from Apples point of view).
The ability to mess around with the vendor lock-in parts, and update the HDMI standard as needed, are very clear benefits with this design. There may be others as well.
- Jesper
It is correct that HDMI generally transmits uncompressed video, but it is absolutely not raw (or RAW) and it is encoded (as virtually all digital signals are, especially audio and video) ... :-)
Video transmitted over HDMI is encoded using Transition-minimized differential signaling (TMDS) which is a variation of 8b/10b encoding.
Also, "grids of pixels" are not transmitted. I have no idea who told you that but don't listen to them/him/her. In a HDMI video signal, one line is defined as the "active" line, and its content is then transmitted in chunks of 32 pixels (during the "TMDS Video Data Period") untill the line is complete and the next line can begin. A lot of control data is transmitted between the chunks of video data, and most of it has an ECC parity for error-correction.
The audio-portion of the signal is also encoded, with whatever encoding the source has chosen to use - lossless or lossy compression is supported and multi-channel audio over HDMI is typically encoded with lossy compression.
On top of it all, the signal is often encrypted using DRM technology.
So yes - it is encoded, supplied with ECC parity, and mixed with a whole lot of other information as well.
.
- Jesper
I am no expert on video compression but I would say: Because upscaling video always produces artifacts?
To me it sounds like they are upscaling a Desktop video signal (likely the 1600x900 they keep referring to) to 1080p. Last I checked any kind of upscaling produces artifacts...
- Jesper
No, absolutely not. Then again, the the device has 2 Gb of RAM, not 2 GB. Or in more clear terms: 256 MB. They just don't know how to read the numbers on the chips properly.
And it is not only the DRM, it is (likely) converting one digital video encoding to another - also called Transcoding.
- Jesper
Nope. He is correct. Just one.
And a grounded wire at each end; sure. But there is no need to run that along the signal line. ;-)
- Jesper
The electronics involved have nothing to do with AirPlay, and this is not "news" in any way. Sorry to ruin excitement and conspiracy theories... :-)
I am willing to bet serious money that all these chips do is decode whatever proprietary protocol Apple uses for transmitting video over the Lightning port to a standard HDCP protected HDMI signal. This is needed because the Lightning port has no other way of transmitting the video - and this has been clear from the day Apple revealed the Lightning port to the world. It is really just a high-speed 8-pin serial connector. Nothing else.
In addition the chips probably try to introduce a classic vendor lock-in factor, making it hard for 3rd party vendors to provide similar cables and accessories for the Lightning port without paying royalties to Apple (read: legal tech-extortion).
Also, the scaling-problems mentioned are without a doubt due to the screen-mirror scheme involved. If they streamed an actual 1080p video file directly, the result would likely be very different.
The speculation in the article is so far from reality it almost hurts... They get points for taking it apart and all, but they could have reached the correct conclusion merely by reading up on the existing specs of the Lightning port (if they had bothered to add a bit of digital-video knowledge from Wikipedia that is).
- Jesper
First damn sensible post I've read in this thread.
I can't believe some of the lame-ass "advice" given here.
MAC whitelisting? Really? What is next - using WEP encryption?
If things are as you say, you have been seriously targeted. Get the authorities involved to ensure you can document that traffic from your connection may have been generated by a 3rd party outsider. They may do nothing other than file a report but that could become a lifesaver for you later on.
Then switch to WPA2 (only - not mixed!) And change your key twice a week for a month or two. Breaking such a key is not trivial so if your intruder is still there you are really left with only two answers. Either your own hosts have been compromised and the key can be extracted that way, or the intruder is the NSA or some other gov.agency.
Pray it is not the latter ...
- Jesper
Team up with a business partner who has better ideas and is more business-savvy than you. Such people typically can't code anything. Together you can achieve what none of you could have done alone.
- Jesper
Any software will do really. Something CPU intensive would be best but even in idle mode that server will use several orders of magnitude more power than a modern server with the same capability.
Put it in your living room and use it as a heater.
- Jesper
*sigh*
If i tell you not to kill people or not commit robbery that is legal advice too. I may even tell you to stop for a red light while driving as well.
Can you please be serious for a moment? /J
Way wrong. They are likely getting a percentage of the settlements or they are hired in-house by the IP firm who holds the patent.
No small-time patent troll will start throwing money at lawyers on a per-hour basis. Only the big ones with loads of cash and a proven track record for their parents can afford that approach.
Evaluating if a threat is "idle" or not is the real trick now ... isn't it ... ;-) /J
Fair enough. And nice to hear from an actual patent lawyer here.
However, as a rule of thumb I still believe my suggestion stands. Simply ignoring letters from lawyers generally creates more problems than it solves.
Trolls - regardless of industry (entertainment, patents, whatever) - tend to toss the small cases creating the highest workload. Asking for further information, origin of the information/data, instructions on how to proceed to solve the matter without paying, etc. is also likely to make them go away.
The only legal advice I am giving here, is "Always answer a letter sent to you by a lawyer" - because a bunch of people suggested just "waiting it out".
I have not suggested he/she should not contact a lawyer, nor am I giving specific legal advice on what to do with the case.
I believe my suggestion remains: Always answer letters sent by lawyers, and make sure they are either useless or stalling. This will hold true no matter if you contact a lawyer yourself or not - and it should not make any actual difference in your case since you have basically done nothing other than answering their letters with useless or case-stalling responses.
I don't believe that constitutes "lousy legal advice". The lousy advice is the suggestion made by others to ignore the letter and "ride it out". Go call those post lousy instead, eh?
And for the record: Yes, do contact a lawyer. I never said not to.
- Jesper
Apologies for typos. Slashdots edit field sucks on a cell with mobile Chrome :-/ /J
You should always answer a lawyer who sends you a letter. Even a troll. Just make sure your answer is either useless to them or can be used to stall the case.
For example you could send a letter explaining that you don't believe your company infringes on said patent amd ask for clarification on why they believe otherwise.
When you get an answer to that, your next letter should be a series of questions asking how they know stuff about your company. Ask them where they got their information from, and ask them to provide a full report on all data collected about you or the company. They may very well be legally obligated to respond to inquiries about collected data.
Finally, ask them for instructions on how they believe you can stop infringing the patent. Explain you have no desire to infringe on it, that you believe you are indeed not, but that you would be happe to evaluate any suggestions they might have regarding ways to ensure the alleged infringement.
Each time wait 7-9 days before responding.
If they get difficult ask for a personal meeting at your office and make sure to explain how busy you are when you apoligize for being unavailable until ... approx 9-17 days later.
By the time you are done with this the patent expiation date will be closer and they will have wasted a ton of time. Also should the case ever get to trial you can show that you have honestly tried to cooperate in any way possible (short on paying for the infringement you don't believe is taking place).
It is almost as much fun as fooling nigerian scammers.
Put them to work. It isn't really that hard. :-)
- Jesper
Who or what the fuck is a JSTOR? Would it kill the summary writer to explain the acronym?
Most people know what it is, because of the Swartz-case. So you missed it - fine - but rambling about it on a geek-site like /. is hardly the way to go.
Have you tried Googling it?
https://www.google.com/search?q=JSTOR
have you tried looking it up on Wikipedia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JSTOR
Have you tried simply visiting their homepage - perhaps even their "about" page?
http://about.jstor.org/
Was that so hard? Really?
Seriously ... as a reader and poster here ... you have failed! :-)
- Jesper
Heh. Would've modded you up if I could. Because that is like the EXACT explanation for what happened in this case.
- Jesper
Let me guess. You really didn't RTFA ... did you ... ?
- Jesper
My bank has public facing computers. If I were to find and exploit a way to access other people's banking data, I'm pretty sure there'd be hell to pay.
I'm pretty sure the US and UK both have laws that would prevent access beyond your authorization. I'd be astonished if Canada did not have similar legislation.
Your bank gets scanned several times an hour (if not several times a minute) by half the blackhats and scriptkiddies of the globe, and nobody in the banks IT dept. would be dumb enough to bitch about it, because they know its natural on a public-facing system.
Simply scanning your bank and reporting your findings to them, is unlikely to get you in "hell" ... unless you act like a dick about it.
You should't scan them without permission - off course. That is not up for debate. But a scan is not the same as gaining - and indeed exploiting - unauthorized access. The school in question here clearly overreacted.
Regarding legislation, you may be right if the authorities decide to make a case out of it. But then again, they'll make a case out of pretty much anything if they are on a rampage. In the US you'll get your ass thrown in jail and/or fined millions just for violating a TOS. Or face 30 years for copying publicly-available data created with tax dollars (ahemm, Swartz?). The fact that such shit happens in the real world really doesn't make it right.
Defining a "scan" as a "crime" is silly at best. Realistically it is an abuse of power and a danger to a free society.
- Jesper
The system was public-facing.
What crime would that be?
- Jesper