One of my dreams as soon as the PS3 was released was to install Linux on it and turn it into a media center hub without any of the DRM restrictions of pre-packaged solutions.
I currently use an Xbox 1 with Xbox Media Center installed, but it's starting to get long in the tooth since it doesn't support HD resolutions.
Although the GPU is restricted from access when in Linux , the CPU on the PS3 is plenty strong still as I understand it. Is there a way to install Linux easily on a PS3 so that it can be an easy to use media center comparable to XBMC?
I've seen reference to the fact that such a thing is possible, but is there an ISO I can just burn or install and have it work? If not, why not?
How do you replicate a 5-10 second start time? I have an eeePC and was thinking about switching from its default Xandros, but the 5-10 second Xandros boot time that is replicated by Ubuntu Netbook Remix is a key feature.
There's a phrase that's often bandied about on Slashdot by people with your viewpoint, that generals always prepare to fight the last war.
However, this really applies equally well to the arm chair generals on Slashdot that tend to bring the phrase out.
In the case of research into advanced weaponry, obviously we shouldn't just be doing research (such as this) that would only come in handy in the types of war we saw in the past (i.e. in the Cold War).
However, just as true is that we shouldn't be doing only research into advanced weaponry that is useful for "current needs" as you put. The enemy we currently are facing or might reasonably expect to face at the moment is not using heavy armor, therefore you argue we should discontinue research into weapons useful against heavy armor. That seems like a smart investment until an enemy that isn't exactly like the one we face now comes up.
Given the long development time behind advanced military hardware, and the fact that the US's time as the sole superpower in the world seems to be rapidly approaching its end, maybe it's not such a bad idea to be putting at least some of our research money into preparing for future, as well as current threats.
So under your theory, a mafia don who never gets his own hands dirty but merely orders people to go out and kill on his behalf should not be guilty of anything?
Of course, 5 wolves and a sheep could also vote on what to have for lunch.
Maybe we shouldn't just pass a law for whatever the majority thinks unless it's a matter of major public concern such as safety, especially when it comes to restricting the rights of others (in this case the rights of the airlines to make the decisions for themselves).
Yes, the public purpose from other posters apparently being "I don't like it, it would bother me and be too noisy." Which is clearly a decision that is too important to entrust to those dirty profit seeking corporations, with their motivations to please customers in order maximize profits.
I love how you lump us into one pool of the same mind~ I love how you read only what you want to see. There is a definite time and place for this argument you are forwarding, this is not it. From my original post: It's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly pro-tech, the average reader is also very hostile to the idea of in-flight calls based on past stories on this.
Moreover, it's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly anti-government regulation, when it comes to things they want the government to regulate, like banning in-flight cellular phone use, they're generally more than happy to acquiesce.
"I haven't heard of a single legitimate reason to involve governmental intervention in this." As someone who has tested phone that were pulled from plane when the nav system started getting quirky, I would say yes, it is a government issue.
When pico phone come out, is everyone going to immediately get one? I also love how you not only haven't read my comment, but you haven't read the article. The pico cell is a part of the plane, not the phone. In my own comment I stated that the safety concerns will soon be addressed by observing the UK deregulation experiment. Furthermore, the article states that the FCC will not revisit the issue even if safety concerns prove not be an issue.
It's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly pro-tech, the average reader is also very hostile to the idea of in-flight calls based on past stories on this.
Moreover, it's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly anti-government regulation, when it comes to things they want the government to regulate, like banning in-flight cellular phone use, they're generally more than happy to acquiesce.
Unless the cell phones present a safety concern, I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to be involved in banning in-flight cell phone use. If the free market turns out to be interested in having quiet flights without cellular phone use, then I'm sure carriers will be more than happy to offer flights and/or cabins that ban cellular phone use. There are already laws that make not complying with flight attendants a crime. If the market turns out to be more interested in the convenience of using phones on planes, then who are you to be telling them through the use of legalized government force to prevent airlines from serving those markets?
Other than the interference with navigational controls and ground based towers, which are supposed to be eliminated with the pico-cells, and which we'll soon get to the bottom of with the UK legalizing, I haven't heard of a single legitimate reason to involve governmental intervention in this. The blurb about terrorism concerns and remote detonating bombs sounds like more pointless scare-mongering with no increase in security. The article itself admits that people are already surreptitiously using cellular phones.
It's nice that most Slashdoters don't want cell phones on planes, but it's downright screwed up to use governmental force to make everyone go along with it without a public purpose behind it.
Do you really think loop holes and tax shelters disappeared in the 80s? The tax code is immense, and there's plenty of ways to unfairly reduce your taxes by gaming the system.
Okay, what makes you think otherwise? The fact that the tax code is immense does not in and of itself mean that there are tons of loopholes in it, nor does your unsupported assertion. Do you have reasons for what you believe, or is it just because you've heard? What pray tell is the loophole your multi-millionaire employer used?
As much as I love a good inflammatory "the rich don't pay taxes" argument, it's simply not true.
For example, look at that article you linked to yourself for the claim that 1/436 rich people didn't pay taxes. First off, 1/436 hardly sounds like a strong support for your claim that the rich don't pay tax. Second, we find from your own article, that "the most important item in eliminating tax" was taking income in the form of tax-exempt interest on state and municipal bonds. Wow, what a loophole! We decided to encourage people to finance state and local governments by making interest on their bonds tax free, and then evil RICH people started to buy them, making their income tax free! What a loophole! Third, another 12% of those people were in fact paying taxes to foreign governments, which we as part of the international community, have agreed to give tax credits for, to prevent the same income from being taxed twice. Fourth, knock off the group that is only lumped in here because of untaxed benefits like social security and the tax-free muni bonds we talked about above, and you remove another 45%.
All of this was just from the article you linked to.
It's true that there was a time in the 80's when individual tax shelters were common and capable of reducing the tax burden of the upper class significantly, and that's when this stereotype really built up, but the truth is that in this day and age there really isn't any way for the upper class to cheat the taxman.
I once met a multi-millionaire corporate tax attorney, and he had a laugh with me over the fact that everyone always expects him to not have to be paying any taxes himself, whereas the truth is there really isn't anything he can do to shelter his individual income. He said the only thing that his tax training helped him with individually was that when the IRS did do things like audit him, he was a lot less scared and more familiar with what his rights were.
It'd be nice if the more reputable benchmarking/PC review sites started to apply pressure on manufacturers to clean up their act. They could run all benchmarks only on the systems as they ship out of the box, without optimizing by uninstalling any of the craplets. It's gotten to the point, where I recall reading a review where the reviewer said that it felt like the computer was broken and virus infested on taking it out of the box, and it wasn't until he uninstalled all the extras that it started to perform up to its impressive specs. Surely that would have a big effect on the benchmarks.
Some advice to the cheap-ass camp: You ain't an us. I pay my nanny more than $400 a week.
Some advice to the ostentatiously rich camp: You don't get adoption of a format by selling it only to the ostentatiously rich. That's how you end up with laser disc.
I'm as much for open source as the next guy, but for the love of all that is holy, what are you talking about? If marketing can be open sourced, how will it work? "Someone will innovate and figure that problem out"?
Square pegs don't fit every type of hole. No matter how much we sit around and think about it, no "innovation" will make it fit. We can make some sort of hack and call it a square peg fitting in a round hole, but it isn't really.
The difference between programming and marketing is that marketing isn't about standing on the shoulders of others. Giving away your previous work isn't going to help your successor market to any significant effect.
They have invented "open-source" marketing in the sense of hacks, like viral marketing, that aren't really open source but sort of a vague gesture in that direction, but don't expect traditional marketing to be going anywhere.
Maybe not when you work out the economics of it. He can quite possibly buy an HD DVD player, a bunch of movies, and in a couple years throw them all in the trash and buy a Blu-ray player and those same movies and still come out ahead in terms of total money spent. In which case I think the joke is really on the Blu-ray early adopters.
Just to make my point with numbers: 100 HD DVD Player 50 10 HD DVD movies @ 5 each V 3 years pass 100 Blu-ray Player 150 10 Blu-ray Movies @ 15 each =total 400 + time value of money due to most expenses being backloaded
Versus
300 Blu-ray Player 200 10 Blu-ray Movies @ 20 each =total 500 today
So what accounts for the fact that Apple appears to be the only company that engages in this practice?
Basically every other hardware manufacturer that releases upgraded functionality in the form of software updates does so for free. For example, the update on Microsoft's Zunes were I understand fairly significant, enabling a lot of new features, yet was free for generation 1 owners.
Do you have any links that concisely summarize turning the PS3 into a versatile media center? Or are you just talking about the out of the box functionality?
I looked at the news sites for console hacking and didn't see much. Linux access to the RSX but nothing really far developed.
Is there an easy way to turn the PS3 into a replacement for my Xbox Media Center on my Xbox 1?
I'm not sure either my company or any other company I visit would appreciate me slapping a wireless bridge onto their LAN, but at hotels that's definitely a good tip.
I totally agree with what you're saying, but then I don't think my post was in disagreement with yours in any way. We're in agreement on what the target audience is.
I think this is missing the point behind the main thrust of the complaints. Most of the people complaining about it (at least here on Slashdot) have been the mobile road warriors who are worried about it running out of juice while traveling, rather than the battery wearing out after 2 years and needing replacement.
It would appear at first that Apple's ultra thin and light missed its target market; after all, the main market for ultra thin and lights has traditionally been mobile road warriors. However, the lack of a swappable battery and of a wired LAN port (my company, and most I have been to, as well as many hotels I have stayed at, don't even have a wireless network option) make clear that mobile road warriors aren't the target market.
The target market is in fact fashion conscious users, and students, and others whose requirements are a sexy form factor.
I don't think that weight is necessarily even _that_ significant a factor here. Steve Jobs made clear if I recall correctly that he was willing to increase weight to decrease thickness. Thickness has no particular use other than sex appeal, footprint is actually more significant in terms of usefulness when it comes to size. In terms of weight, there have been other laptops that are significantly lighter yet retaining key features like a wired LAN and swappable battery. The entire point of this laptop is how thin and awesome looking it is.
I have no idea the truth of your claims, but I've seen them bandied about Slashdot quite a bit. I am highly skeptical of whether they could possibly be true though.
Why is it that Apple seems to be the only company affected by this issue? Why is it that the Microsoft Zunes, albeit pieces of trash, were able to get free upgrades to generation 2 software granting them new features like wireless sync? Why is it that every piece of hardware I can think of that comes with firmware updates seems to be able to get new functionality without charging except for Apple.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but it definitely strikes me as odd.
I don't have time myself to go looking up the law and trying to figure it out, but could this exclusion affect Comcast for its BitTorrent throttling and RST packet sending?
Slashdot Mirror
That would not seem to explain the grandparent's problem with charging with a universal USB charger.
Well, the whole reason I'm wanting to upgrade from XBMC is to play 1080p MKVs.
Transcoding probably isn't even an option for me for this is it? I imagine you'd need a pretty powerful PC to transcode something like that.
One of my dreams as soon as the PS3 was released was to install Linux on it and turn it into a media center hub without any of the DRM restrictions of pre-packaged solutions.
I currently use an Xbox 1 with Xbox Media Center installed, but it's starting to get long in the tooth since it doesn't support HD resolutions.
Although the GPU is restricted from access when in Linux , the CPU on the PS3 is plenty strong still as I understand it. Is there a way to install Linux easily on a PS3 so that it can be an easy to use media center comparable to XBMC?
I've seen reference to the fact that such a thing is possible, but is there an ISO I can just burn or install and have it work? If not, why not?
How do you replicate a 5-10 second start time? I have an eeePC and was thinking about switching from its default Xandros, but the 5-10 second Xandros boot time that is replicated by Ubuntu Netbook Remix is a key feature.
There's a phrase that's often bandied about on Slashdot by people with your viewpoint, that generals always prepare to fight the last war.
However, this really applies equally well to the arm chair generals on Slashdot that tend to bring the phrase out.
In the case of research into advanced weaponry, obviously we shouldn't just be doing research (such as this) that would only come in handy in the types of war we saw in the past (i.e. in the Cold War).
However, just as true is that we shouldn't be doing only research into advanced weaponry that is useful for "current needs" as you put. The enemy we currently are facing or might reasonably expect to face at the moment is not using heavy armor, therefore you argue we should discontinue research into weapons useful against heavy armor. That seems like a smart investment until an enemy that isn't exactly like the one we face now comes up.
Given the long development time behind advanced military hardware, and the fact that the US's time as the sole superpower in the world seems to be rapidly approaching its end, maybe it's not such a bad idea to be putting at least some of our research money into preparing for future, as well as current threats.
So under your theory, a mafia don who never gets his own hands dirty but merely orders people to go out and kill on his behalf should not be guilty of anything?
Of course, 5 wolves and a sheep could also vote on what to have for lunch.
Maybe we shouldn't just pass a law for whatever the majority thinks unless it's a matter of major public concern such as safety, especially when it comes to restricting the rights of others (in this case the rights of the airlines to make the decisions for themselves).
Yes, the public purpose from other posters apparently being "I don't like it, it would bother me and be too noisy." Which is clearly a decision that is too important to entrust to those dirty profit seeking corporations, with their motivations to please customers in order maximize profits.
What, you don't see a lot of pro-tech, anti-government regulation, or pro-banning cell phones on flights comments?
Are we posting on the same website right now?
From my original post: It's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly pro-tech, the average reader is also very hostile to the idea of in-flight calls based on past stories on this.
Moreover, it's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly anti-government regulation, when it comes to things they want the government to regulate, like banning in-flight cellular phone use, they're generally more than happy to acquiesce. "I haven't heard of a single legitimate reason to involve governmental intervention in this."
As someone who has tested phone that were pulled from plane when the nav system started getting quirky, I would say yes, it is a government issue.
When pico phone come out, is everyone going to immediately get one? I also love how you not only haven't read my comment, but you haven't read the article. The pico cell is a part of the plane, not the phone. In my own comment I stated that the safety concerns will soon be addressed by observing the UK deregulation experiment. Furthermore, the article states that the FCC will not revisit the issue even if safety concerns prove not be an issue.
It's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly pro-tech, the average reader is also very hostile to the idea of in-flight calls based on past stories on this.
Moreover, it's funny how despite the fact that the crowd at Slashdot is generally overwhelmingly anti-government regulation, when it comes to things they want the government to regulate, like banning in-flight cellular phone use, they're generally more than happy to acquiesce.
Unless the cell phones present a safety concern, I don't see any reason whatsoever for the government to be involved in banning in-flight cell phone use. If the free market turns out to be interested in having quiet flights without cellular phone use, then I'm sure carriers will be more than happy to offer flights and/or cabins that ban cellular phone use. There are already laws that make not complying with flight attendants a crime. If the market turns out to be more interested in the convenience of using phones on planes, then who are you to be telling them through the use of legalized government force to prevent airlines from serving those markets?
Other than the interference with navigational controls and ground based towers, which are supposed to be eliminated with the pico-cells, and which we'll soon get to the bottom of with the UK legalizing, I haven't heard of a single legitimate reason to involve governmental intervention in this. The blurb about terrorism concerns and remote detonating bombs sounds like more pointless scare-mongering with no increase in security. The article itself admits that people are already surreptitiously using cellular phones.
It's nice that most Slashdoters don't want cell phones on planes, but it's downright screwed up to use governmental force to make everyone go along with it without a public purpose behind it.
As much as I love a good inflammatory "the rich don't pay taxes" argument, it's simply not true.
For example, look at that article you linked to yourself for the claim that 1/436 rich people didn't pay taxes.
First off, 1/436 hardly sounds like a strong support for your claim that the rich don't pay tax.
Second, we find from your own article, that "the most important item in eliminating tax" was taking income in the form of tax-exempt interest on state and municipal bonds. Wow, what a loophole! We decided to encourage people to finance state and local governments by making interest on their bonds tax free, and then evil RICH people started to buy them, making their income tax free! What a loophole!
Third, another 12% of those people were in fact paying taxes to foreign governments, which we as part of the international community, have agreed to give tax credits for, to prevent the same income from being taxed twice.
Fourth, knock off the group that is only lumped in here because of untaxed benefits like social security and the tax-free muni bonds we talked about above, and you remove another 45%.
All of this was just from the article you linked to.
It's true that there was a time in the 80's when individual tax shelters were common and capable of reducing the tax burden of the upper class significantly, and that's when this stereotype really built up, but the truth is that in this day and age there really isn't any way for the upper class to cheat the taxman.
I once met a multi-millionaire corporate tax attorney, and he had a laugh with me over the fact that everyone always expects him to not have to be paying any taxes himself, whereas the truth is there really isn't anything he can do to shelter his individual income. He said the only thing that his tax training helped him with individually was that when the IRS did do things like audit him, he was a lot less scared and more familiar with what his rights were.
It'd be nice if the more reputable benchmarking/PC review sites started to apply pressure on manufacturers to clean up their act. They could run all benchmarks only on the systems as they ship out of the box, without optimizing by uninstalling any of the craplets. It's gotten to the point, where I recall reading a review where the reviewer said that it felt like the computer was broken and virus infested on taking it out of the box, and it wasn't until he uninstalled all the extras that it started to perform up to its impressive specs. Surely that would have a big effect on the benchmarks.
I'm as much for open source as the next guy, but for the love of all that is holy, what are you talking about? If marketing can be open sourced, how will it work? "Someone will innovate and figure that problem out"?
Square pegs don't fit every type of hole. No matter how much we sit around and think about it, no "innovation" will make it fit. We can make some sort of hack and call it a square peg fitting in a round hole, but it isn't really.
The difference between programming and marketing is that marketing isn't about standing on the shoulders of others. Giving away your previous work isn't going to help your successor market to any significant effect.
They have invented "open-source" marketing in the sense of hacks, like viral marketing, that aren't really open source but sort of a vague gesture in that direction, but don't expect traditional marketing to be going anywhere.
Maybe not when you work out the economics of it. He can quite possibly buy an HD DVD player, a bunch of movies, and in a couple years throw them all in the trash and buy a Blu-ray player and those same movies and still come out ahead in terms of total money spent. In which case I think the joke is really on the Blu-ray early adopters.
Just to make my point with numbers:
100 HD DVD Player
50 10 HD DVD movies @ 5 each
V 3 years pass
100 Blu-ray Player
150 10 Blu-ray Movies @ 15 each
=total 400 + time value of money due to most expenses being backloaded
Versus
300 Blu-ray Player
200 10 Blu-ray Movies @ 20 each
=total 500 today
So what accounts for the fact that Apple appears to be the only company that engages in this practice?
Basically every other hardware manufacturer that releases upgraded functionality in the form of software updates does so for free. For example, the update on Microsoft's Zunes were I understand fairly significant, enabling a lot of new features, yet was free for generation 1 owners.
Do you have any links that concisely summarize turning the PS3 into a versatile media center? Or are you just talking about the out of the box functionality?
I looked at the news sites for console hacking and didn't see much. Linux access to the RSX but nothing really far developed.
Is there an easy way to turn the PS3 into a replacement for my Xbox Media Center on my Xbox 1?
Yow! I think that's just the first time I've ever seen someone not like the keyboards on Thinkpads.
I'm not sure either my company or any other company I visit would appreciate me slapping a wireless bridge onto their LAN, but at hotels that's definitely a good tip.
I totally agree with what you're saying, but then I don't think my post was in disagreement with yours in any way. We're in agreement on what the target audience is.
I think this is missing the point behind the main thrust of the complaints. Most of the people complaining about it (at least here on Slashdot) have been the mobile road warriors who are worried about it running out of juice while traveling, rather than the battery wearing out after 2 years and needing replacement.
It would appear at first that Apple's ultra thin and light missed its target market; after all, the main market for ultra thin and lights has traditionally been mobile road warriors. However, the lack of a swappable battery and of a wired LAN port (my company, and most I have been to, as well as many hotels I have stayed at, don't even have a wireless network option) make clear that mobile road warriors aren't the target market.
The target market is in fact fashion conscious users, and students, and others whose requirements are a sexy form factor.
I don't think that weight is necessarily even _that_ significant a factor here. Steve Jobs made clear if I recall correctly that he was willing to increase weight to decrease thickness. Thickness has no particular use other than sex appeal, footprint is actually more significant in terms of usefulness when it comes to size. In terms of weight, there have been other laptops that are significantly lighter yet retaining key features like a wired LAN and swappable battery. The entire point of this laptop is how thin and awesome looking it is.
I have no idea the truth of your claims, but I've seen them bandied about Slashdot quite a bit. I am highly skeptical of whether they could possibly be true though.
Why is it that Apple seems to be the only company affected by this issue? Why is it that the Microsoft Zunes, albeit pieces of trash, were able to get free upgrades to generation 2 software granting them new features like wireless sync? Why is it that every piece of hardware I can think of that comes with firmware updates seems to be able to get new functionality without charging except for Apple.
Maybe I'm being cynical, but it definitely strikes me as odd.
I don't have time myself to go looking up the law and trying to figure it out, but could this exclusion affect Comcast for its BitTorrent throttling and RST packet sending?