You sure you're not a troll? A statement like that will get an entirely different (but no less virulent) encampment of them started on debating which headphones are better than which (which, like creationism vs. evolution debates, will never end).
I'd check the documentation and terms of sale; I highly suspect that the recommended "break in period" is at the very least a greater portion of the warranty period.;-)
There is a certain amount of techical validity in doing that, since CAT5 is twisted pair, and so long as the signals running through twisted pair is truly differential then common-mode noise is rejected.
What I find interesting (and horrifying at the same time) from that site, is that the MPAA and the FCC are actually discussing legally limiting who can purchase fast ADCs in order to protect their IP. So, what, if they got their way, I'd have to get some sort of license to purchase an integrated circuit because I might use it to build an HDTV receiver that they can't control? What a bunch of jerks!
China isn't exacly noted for playing nice with what the rest of the world might want, stet?
What if they do make it back to the moon before anyone else does, and declare that they're taking posession of it?
I think the title of this posting could be construed as a bit misleading, in that it says 'radio' but when you read the attributed article, they're talking about cellphones, not things like broadcast radio or other areas where RF transmission and reception are necessary. It may or may not be obvious to anyone, but there's no way that tuned RF circuits can be completely eliminated, at least if you're talking about over-the-air transmissions; you still need to at least provide amplification (which must be a tuned circuit) and impedance-match to your antenna (which again must be a tuned circuit).
I don't even have to go looking: there are too many examples out there of net-nanny type software not working 100%, and if it's less than 100% effective, then it's worthless. Additionally, do you really want there to be a trend towards ISPs routinely censoring content? Hasn't that been tried before, with similar results to netnanny type software? More to the point: do you want someone else deciding for you and everyone else what is and is not porn?
Doesn't matter if this story is real or not. If MS does this, inside the first month after release, there'll be at least one hack out there to completely disable it anyway.
Really? Then I guess you might be in for a nice little reward from MS, friend, when you turn me in for setting the Automatic Updates service on any Windows box I own to "Disabled", thereby blatantly robbing them of their God-given right to do whatever they want.;)
Anybody remember the movie (followed by the television series) Max Headroom? They lived in a future where it was illegal to have an "off" button on your television receiver; you were expected to have it on 24 hours a day. I'm not implying that this is the direction things are going in the real world, but it's about as rediculous as the idea that blocking ads is "stealing content". Would anyone consider it reasonable or even rational if, say, the ability to mute the sound on a television set or turn the volume down to zero, was made illegal? Or to take it to an extreme, make it illegal to turn your head or leave the room when commercials were running? Aside from such things being as unenforceable as anti-pickpocketing laws in a major metropolis, I can't see where anybody except money-grubbing businesspeople (who, subsequently, would find ways to exempt themselves) would find such things reasonable.
As someone else here has already stated: It's my computer, it's my paid-for connection to the internet, it's my right to see or not see whatever I do or do not want, unless I choose to surrender my ability to choose (e.g., the way Netzero used to be). Personally, I'll rip the damned cable out of the wall myself the day that happens and go back to writing code for entertainment (and yes, I'm aware my rant is starting to reach "Stay off my lawn you damned kids" proportions; I'm taking a step back from the edge now).
If they're grousing about Adblock Plus, I'm sure next they'll be whining about the Flashblock plugin. Not like the over-use of Flash animations on websites has become SPAM 2.0 or anything like that.:p
"Choice" is (or was, anyway) an important theme in Christian religions; you choose the faith, to follow the teachings, etc. I've read a number of comments here that seem to make the assumption that this technology would be applied to childrens television viewing habits, but from what I've seen of the current state of Christianity, church leaders would seek to apply it to everyone, adult and child alike, essentially removing the element of choice from their lives -- which seems to be a more and more common theme these days everywhere you look. Back in the day, when I actually believed in such things, I was always taught that taking away your choices and being made to follow blindly, was Satans way of doing things, not God or Jesus's way; the fact that you are free to choose between good and evil was more important than the thing you were deciding one way or the other.
FWIW, I think the technology may have valid and positive uses, but the way it's portrayed here doesn't put it in a positive light.
..it'd be hilarious. As is it's just plain sad, and somewhat infuriating.
So, what, Spybot S&D, Adaware, (etc), and any decent antivirus application are going to be outlawed, or worse, compromised to ignore their tame spyware trojans? Or do they think that they've got such good programming talent on the government dole, that they can create spyware that won't be tagged by any of the above? I think not.
Maybe they should go collaborate with Sony, since Sony is so up-to-date on rootkit technology.:p
Additionally, I don't personally think that the general public should be allowed the opportunity to purchase a "flying car"; I have yet to see the general automobile-driving public demonstrate consistent proficiency in:
merging with oncoming traffic entering the freeway
using their turn signals
parallel parking
obeying speed laws
general courtesy on the open road
many more things I won't bother mentioning here
..so I'd think they'd be responsible and safe operating an aircraft every day why?:p
Are they also saying, then, that since the version of PING that comes distributed with, say, Fedora Core or Redhat is a DoS tool and therefore illegal to own, simply because you could use many copies of it spread out over many computers, run with maximum message size, no delay, and running ad infinitum? Or that if I happen to have tools in my garage that could be used to break into someone's house, that it's the same as actually committing breaking and entering?
Oh, wait! I have the math and physics skills to determine critical mass! I must be teh terr0ri$t! Everybody panic!
What's next, then? If you have a Bittorrent client that you use only to download completely legal files (like, say, Fedora Core) that by association, Fedora Core must be illegal because you use an "illegal" piece of software to download it?
I'm being a little rediculous -- but only a little. This is exactly the sort of mentality I'm coming to expect these days.:p
6 years ago when I was working as a contractor out at Intel doing desktop PC support we'd see a problem where an outdated video driver would break the network card; how is it that these relatively unrelated pieces of hardware could affect each other? We're not even talking XP here either, we're talking Windows 2000.
(nodding in agreement) Last time I checked, sound chips and ethernet MACs both have their own state machines to handle bulk data transfers using bus cycles, not CPU cycles, right? Bus bandwidth is huge compared to the bandwidth of both of those put together, right?
Slashdot Mirror
Does it make colors brighter and food taste better, too? I'm in! :D
You sure you're not a troll? A statement like that will get an entirely different (but no less virulent) encampment of them started on debating which headphones are better than which (which, like creationism vs. evolution debates, will never end).
..in the neighborhood of -110dB, that is. :D
I'd check the documentation and terms of sale; I highly suspect that the recommended "break in period" is at the very least a greater portion of the warranty period. ;-)
Not necessarily true. If what they're in contact with isn't also gold, then bimetallism can occur over time, actually creating higher resistances.
There is a certain amount of techical validity in doing that, since CAT5 is twisted pair, and so long as the signals running through twisted pair is truly differential then common-mode noise is rejected.
Wasn't there a story a while back about how DNS was being hacked? If I am remembering correctly, then couldn't these two things be related?
What I find interesting (and horrifying at the same time) from that site, is that the MPAA and the FCC are actually discussing legally limiting who can purchase fast ADCs in order to protect their IP. So, what, if they got their way, I'd have to get some sort of license to purchase an integrated circuit because I might use it to build an HDTV receiver that they can't control? What a bunch of jerks!
China isn't exacly noted for playing nice with what the rest of the world might want, stet?
What if they do make it back to the moon before anyone else does, and declare that they're taking posession of it?
I think the title of this posting could be construed as a bit misleading, in that it says 'radio' but when you read the attributed article, they're talking about cellphones, not things like broadcast radio or other areas where RF transmission and reception are necessary. It may or may not be obvious to anyone, but there's no way that tuned RF circuits can be completely eliminated, at least if you're talking about over-the-air transmissions; you still need to at least provide amplification (which must be a tuned circuit) and impedance-match to your antenna (which again must be a tuned circuit).
I don't even have to go looking: there are too many examples out there of net-nanny type software not working 100%, and if it's less than 100% effective, then it's worthless. Additionally, do you really want there to be a trend towards ISPs routinely censoring content? Hasn't that been tried before, with similar results to netnanny type software? More to the point: do you want someone else deciding for you and everyone else what is and is not porn?
Doesn't matter if this story is real or not. If MS does this, inside the first month after release, there'll be at least one hack out there to completely disable it anyway.
Really? Then I guess you might be in for a nice little reward from MS, friend, when you turn me in for setting the Automatic Updates service on any Windows box I own to "Disabled", thereby blatantly robbing them of their God-given right to do whatever they want. ;)
As someone else here has already stated: It's my computer, it's my paid-for connection to the internet, it's my right to see or not see whatever I do or do not want, unless I choose to surrender my ability to choose (e.g., the way Netzero used to be). Personally, I'll rip the damned cable out of the wall myself the day that happens and go back to writing code for entertainment (and yes, I'm aware my rant is starting to reach "Stay off my lawn you damned kids" proportions; I'm taking a step back from the edge now).
If they're grousing about Adblock Plus, I'm sure next they'll be whining about the Flashblock plugin. Not like the over-use of Flash animations on websites has become SPAM 2.0 or anything like that. :p
FWIW, I think the technology may have valid and positive uses, but the way it's portrayed here doesn't put it in a positive light.
So, what, Spybot S&D, Adaware, (etc), and any decent antivirus application are going to be outlawed, or worse, compromised to ignore their tame spyware trojans? Or do they think that they've got such good programming talent on the government dole, that they can create spyware that won't be tagged by any of the above? I think not.
Maybe they should go collaborate with Sony, since Sony is so up-to-date on rootkit technology. :p
Bastards.
Additionally, I don't personally think that the general public should be allowed the opportunity to purchase a "flying car"; I have yet to see the general automobile-driving public demonstrate consistent proficiency in:
Are we now going to be held criminally liable for what we might do?
Did I wake up this morning in Minority Report?
Are they also saying, then, that since the version of PING that comes distributed with, say, Fedora Core or Redhat is a DoS tool and therefore illegal to own, simply because you could use many copies of it spread out over many computers, run with maximum message size, no delay, and running ad infinitum? Or that if I happen to have tools in my garage that could be used to break into someone's house, that it's the same as actually committing breaking and entering?
Oh, wait! I have the math and physics skills to determine critical mass! I must be teh terr0ri$t! Everybody panic!
What's next, then? If you have a Bittorrent client that you use only to download completely legal files (like, say, Fedora Core) that by association, Fedora Core must be illegal because you use an "illegal" piece of software to download it?
I'm being a little rediculous -- but only a little. This is exactly the sort of mentality I'm coming to expect these days. :p
Thank You for saying that, I'm glad (for once) to not be the first.
If this is the way things fall out, then I see a big future lies ahead for the Antigua internet hosting market. ;-)
Das Vedanya, comrade.
(skaking head) sad, sounds like the same person who decided that a "software modem" was a good idea also put a bug in the ear of MS developers. :p
6 years ago when I was working as a contractor out at Intel doing desktop PC support we'd see a problem where an outdated video driver would break the network card; how is it that these relatively unrelated pieces of hardware could affect each other? We're not even talking XP here either, we're talking Windows 2000.
(nodding in agreement)
Last time I checked, sound chips and ethernet MACs both have their own state machines to handle bulk data transfers using bus cycles, not CPU cycles, right? Bus bandwidth is huge compared to the bandwidth of both of those put together, right?
The more I read, the more the old "avoid any version with a dot-zero on the end of it" rule of thumb is proven right.