I was going to post on what you did, so let me paraphrase you, maybe that mod will change - and karma aside, you make good points, indirectly addressing other comments. So, here goes:
TV is mandated to go all-digital soon. All the broadcasters in my market already have. So they're broadcasting VHF TV and UHF DTV (with and without HD variants).
So what happens to all that VHF and those crowded Eastern corridors when the mandate takes effect? I should research before answering, but in any case, I predict FCC-supported shutdown of the unnecessary VHF broadcasting expenses will be approved and VHF TV will go away. Unused bandwidth, in the far-reaching channels 7 and 8 sweet spot as another poster mentioned, the high population corridors uncrowded - that makes sense.
What will that nice, uncrowded VHF be good for? If you think outside of the box, like BBS-over-HAM guys, or like Microsoft is doing, you repurpose VHF for internet delivery.
Please see my post in this thread, "Don't kid yourselves" for what I choose to post instead.
Yes, I know Microsoft makes money on BD, but from recent articles here, it looks like they may well lose and take a bath on HD DVD.
Market associates BD with Sony and Apple, HD DVD with Microsoft.
This isn't about the internet over TV airwaves.
This is about Microsoft leveraging their new HD knowledge to reuse that bath water to one-up the ease of use and delivery of iTMS movies and the Apple TV Take 2. And it's about giving their DRM a new life for a hegemony.
They're never going to catch up (hell, as if I _know_ this), with the iPod because the Zune and their DRM had egg on it. Their HD DVD is going to have egg on it. In any emerging market, you get the opportunity to be early and win big or lose big.
Microsoft does not want to lose big in HDTV like they did and are in digital music.
This is about Microsoft HDTV and Microsoft DRM. Mark my words.
I agree with you, but here's why I'm posting. I never thought I'd side with Apple's choice of lock-in vs. open, especially with all of the AT&T evil. Now I say this as someone who waited for an iPhone and decided to cancel AT&T instead.
But when I look at things dispassionately, per your inspiration, it becomes obvious to me that this was an insanely smart play on their part. Because of evil, emotional lock-in? No, because of risk management.
I manage risk for a living and it can be quantified as the (complexity/maturity). New smart phones are complex and immature, so there's high risk. If you don't like the risk level you seek to mitigate it. For most US providers, this means reducing complexity. Apple choose to consider the maturity side. ((We can argue all we want that everyone knows it should have used an open sim. What about us CDMA/1x/3G users? Still screwed, so nothing accomplished.)) What would I worry about as a manager launching the product? What drives the market, what drives support.
I did a study of my memory and realized that I knew quite a few people switching from Cingular to Verizon because they liked things like (I think it's called) the Sidekick. Had to go with Verizon to get it, so they did.
Ah, says the study - that model might work. Now, who's a mature provider in this market that doesn't have a neat-o, keen-o device associated with their service. Cingular. Hell, I put up with a RAZR - in many ways a downgrade from my StarTac - because I was OK with Cingular service. Sure they catalog a lot of better phones, but none had the appeal to me - they just seemed like work.
Apple approached Cingular, as I recall, not AT&T, AT&T happened after. So there may have been some merit in the strategy after all.
But look at the equation when the name changes to AT&T. I propose by example: "Honey, I want an iPhone." "They're new, it's Apple, I'm not sure. Plus, they cost more." "Honey, it's backed by AT&T - how could it not be OK?"
This isn't out of thin air. I worked for a summer at a computer store, part time. "Honey, I want one of these new computers." "They're new, it's DOS, I'm not sure. Plus, they cost more." "Honey, it's backed by IBM - how could it not be OK?"
If the response is that I've proved Apple _AND_ Microsoft are similarly evil, fine. But I think I just proved that iPhone / AT&T idea is not without precedent, was sound risk management for the product launch, and was probably driven more by smart, dispassionate, business thinking than just knee-jerk evil.
I thought I would get an iPhone, but I got an Ocean because it was cooler. But I want people to know my definition of cool. I decided it was cooler to keep my iPod separate so I could leave this ball and chain behind and listen to music without other people knowing that I have an iPhone, so I'm always in touch. I decided it was cooler to be able to change my battery. I decided it was cool to have some kind of QWERTY keyboard so I could really deal with SMS and email - I travel for work a lot, this is important. I hate Microsoft mail - a lot - but my phone supports and it's cool that I have that if my company caves to that. I decided it was cool because it wasn't a candy bar style.
I was torn between the OpenMoko/Neo 1973 and the iPhone. But I couldn't wait. So I shopped for the phone. I've followed every thread here religiously and have checked out every phone that someone spoke positively about - but they're weren't cool.
Cool is having just the right device to make you happy for what you want to do. The iPhone is easy, the OpenMoko stuff looks like it's going to be easy, the Ocean is easy. It's personal, it's subjective, but here's an important point to this rant:
Sometimes people choose cool and it doesn't mean shallow or status or stupid or trendy.
I wanted to drop AT&T, but if I'd thought the iPhone was cooler - by more usable for what _I_ want - then I'd have bitten the bullet. But I go
Party on the other end isn't savvy enough to follow that. When I used the Gtalk web interface or the Gtalk desktop tool, I see their status just fine, hence my conclusion.
But it's worth a shot - I'll try to get them to try it again. Thanks for the suggestion.
With iChat AV, I can see idle time (very important, let's me know co-worker is away from console) and client abilities (let's me know if audio or video is supported).
We all agree to change status when idle - but sometimes lack time or are too lazy.
(Oddly, I can see on-line status with the Jabber side of iChat AV for one gtalk guy, but not at all for another guy. I'd either blame Google or iChat for that before XMPP.)
With Jabber, you can also:
- Reach more people, because some people don't like the AIM or iChat Kool Aide even if we do:)
So, would I be inferring too much to think that whatever Jingle becomes may well be what Google will ultimately do? I'm guessing that they want traffic, and are supporting Jabber for chat as standards-based, so they'd expect more mindshare supporting the full standard when it is locked in stone.
It's not just mental meandering. I have too many chat clients that go so far, and I'm getting ready to cull the herd. OK, maybe it is mental meandering.
I like chatting with AIM users via iChat using voice. If AIM were to go XMPP, I'd think they'd need to support voice to keep their users happy. Google talk's jingle evidently isn't the same as that published by XMPP - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)
So, before I start cheering, I'd like to know if supporting voice for AIM/XMPP will follow the standard or follow Gtalk or what?
Interesting if the XP upgrade was causal or coincidental... We use XP SP2, firewall off (no external net access), all updates applied. Ensure you have no interrupt conflicts - that may have happened inadvertently with the 2k to XP upgrade.
NI, as you prolly know, claims to support PCMCIA w/ 2.5 - http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5326 - we didn't see any problems with GPIB+, PCI or USB going from 2.2 to 2.5 - but the PCMCIA doesn't support DMA, so maybe they missed something as you suspect.
Also, make sure you're NOT config'd to go at the max possible rate (HS488) - I don't recall but that config param default may be changed with the newer driver - a no-no if you're DMA incapable (ok, I'm swag'ing here - but it makes sense to me). Check timing params also - sorry, not in front of an NI machine, so this is all by memory....
Also - don't underestimate the flakey GPIB cable bit. I had a similar experience and sadly the days of bullet-proof HP GPIB cables are gone. Open the shell on one today and you'll find nice, vibration-sensitive, press-in wiring connectors. If it's a bad ATN or NDAC wire, then you're just seeing the first problem in the OPC query.
See Appendix C, page 4 of the NI 488.2 User Guide. In addition to cause and cure listed there, the following may apply, from my personal experiences: 1. Bad GPIB cable allowing for intermittent ATN signal 2. If slot based, reseat the NI GPIB card - especially if you have an older VME cage, clean your card contacts and clean your case to ensure no extra circuit paths from dust. 3. If NI-GPIB-USB based, ensure correct contact with the cable in to the USB port - it has no strain relief. Further, check to ensure that the contacts are OK (this is least likely cause).
If you are running with multiple controllers, you're having an application s/w inflicted arbitration problem.
But my most likely suspect for you - if you're running a single controller system - is that your interface isn't the controller in charge (CIC) when issuing the operation complete query (*OPC?). That is remedied by asserting a bus clear or naked (no address) interface clear. However, if your s/w is well structured, you should be querying on an operation in progress, so you wouldn't expect that. You might - if you suspect older hardware to be a problem - trap for the error, issue a bus clear and re-attempt.
Finally, ensure that you have the lastest updates for your 488 driver and VISA from NI, latest firmware from Fluke.
And don't underestimate the other components in the chain. I was troubleshooting a problem with an instrument for days before discovering that another instrument's GPIB interface was card based and his card was loose. Turned out he would change his address, phantomly and on-the-fly causing all sorts of bus malice. Reseating that one did the trick.
If you have access to the NI GPIB bus-sniffing controller, run a bus-sniffing session and you'll likely learn the real cause and cure if the above doesn't help. They're a little pricier, but worth their weight in gold. I wouldn't run a lab without one.
I've used GPIB since it came out as HPIB, almost going back to 78. It's reliable if done right and not requiring many hardware swapouts for a problem this simple.
I don't work for either NI or Fluke, nor do I independently consult on these matters - I just like the protocol.
Apologies to others for being otherwise off-topic.
Fine. But you're sidestepping the issue that the vacuum tube computers were just smoothing out the square-edged source - paper tape was best. It recorded with _round_ holes - electrons, wires, vacuum tubes - all _round_. And paper tape was pleasingly yellow, not some homeland security version of white/beige/taupe/Mandarin-eggshell or whatever color punchcards represented. The coloration described by computophiles being eliminated by solid state computers actually came from the punch cards.
OK, I've followed this issue closely over the year, have R.lots.TFA - but now, unless I've been missing something, a whole new level of smoke-screening has been added to the subject.
In the referenced article, watermarking now has two attributes (not the only two, no anal please): 1) method exists from large player (in this case, Microsoft) to add digital info to a media file that cannot be circumvented; 2) this info can be used by media distributers to, for example, to give the music industry power to prove pirating or to trace the illegal move of media across the net (goes hand-in-glove with ISP filtering, so the article indirectly said that, whether it meant to or not).
Now, even though the article and everyone here is acknowledging the death of DRM and discussing watermarks - I think it's propaganda and a lot of people are buying.
How is the watermarking discussed here _NOT_ DRM?
Think about it. DRM was not an attempt to lock down media on a single platform (read on before shouting, please). DRM is an attempt to control pirating where the media industry wants to prove and control piracy and prosecute those sharing. Its first incarnation was lock-down on a per-platform basis, which from a business sense is pretty smart - saving money on lawyers and putting things on technology's backs. I think this is just the next incarnation, where they can still put the burden on the backs of others, but now give their lawyers - especially their I-told-you-so lawyers - the technical muscle to be much less embarrassed in court over digital forensic screw-ups.
And to me it seems like they're succeeding. I remember when the debate in the early days was a) how easy DRM would be to circumvent so no one would take it seriously, b) consumers wouldn't stand for it, c) there's nothing wrong with it if it were implemented properly, and d) _no one_ here condones pirates, it doesn't interfere with the digital stream too badly, so this may be an acceptable course of action if done right.
So. To me, this thread sounds like the exact same discussions, with s/DRM/watermark/g.
Somebuddy square me away, please. How is this not DRM Phase II and a propaganda victory for the dark media overlords? I don't get it.
And not that I have anything aginst the Polish... No, of course you don't. Rather than flame, I'll try education. The original was taken down, these will have to do.
Here's the kernel of truth underlying all those Polish jokes - most people can't seem to pull themselves up, so they choose someone superior to pull down to make themselves feel better.
Ok, let me try to add this up. As I recall, internet radio was threatened by the bully-arm of the RIAA, SoundExchange, forcing royalty payments even for non-RIAA affiliated artists (or however the legally correct way to express that, if there is one). Remember this one, gang? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/0335224
So, how does this add up? Does EMI pulling away from RIAA defang SoundExchange thereby seriously reducing the threat to internet radio? Or in the ironic comedy of the new century, does the RIAA, with sounds of a death rattle (added for drama, I'm shameless), turn around and unleash SoundExchange on EMI and bring suit under the same grounds as the attack on internet radio?
Having DRM directly benefits Apple. You're locked into the iPod. What are the majority market forces? I think they went like this: 1. I just got an iPod, I might check out the iTMS, but I'm not going to buy ala carte, I have CDs to rip. 2. I either just tried a free iTMS song and like it, or bit the bullet out of curiosity. With my existing iPod. 3. I've heard good iTMS, the price is right, so when I got my iPod, I checked them out and got hooked. 4. I own a non-iPod portable music player and I'm excited about the buzz of the iTMS. In fact, it's so great, I'm giving up brand X to be locked in to an iPod.
People don't flock to iPods because the iTMS is so great - they check out the iTMS because they want to see if their iPods can get any cooler.
Your expression makes theoretical sense, but it doesn't seem to fit the real world as I know it.
Most music purchased on iTunes can be played only on Apple devices, and Apple insists on selling all single tracks for 99 cents. Amazon, which sells tracks for anywhere from 89 cents to over a dollar, offers the pricing variability the labels want. Unless they would choose to follow the EMI model - plays on many devices, price not set at 99 cents.
In the end the anonymous vote allows us to vote secure in our liberty. This has always been everyone's first priority. It is only a second priority that the vote be accurate and the result a representation of the public will. We are working on how to achieve this second without sacrificing the first.
You are beyond correct.
People advocating non-secrecy are solving a problem that doesn't exist. I don't intend this as a troll or flamebait - I'm sure others are intelligent and sincere - but not used to the possible forms of malfeasance, bribery, organized crime and other shenanigans that need controlled. Here in the USA, we have a special brand of corruption that relies on too few people paying attention to the electoral process. Move things into a database - and all that's needed is to control the organization controlling the database. Give out tokens so you can cross-check your vote and all that's needed is to control the token makers and givers.
Here's my take:
1. The electoral process was originally designed blah blah Great Compromise blah we all know that - but it survived, I believe, because it was a numeric desensitizer. Suppose you have 10 states of exact same population - 10 people - 100 total. Six people in six states total vote for one guy - 36 out of 100 votes - and that guys wins by majority. But take the real world as it evolved in the US where states are not homogenous. With high voter turnout, _perhaps_ shenanigans were more easily found out, or were generally known but accepted by an impoverished blue-collar class (I'm looking at you, Eastern Metroplex political machines) or were not fully known by a sparser population, ignorant of land interests (I'm looking at you, dead-people-voting-great-Western-region) - but overall, the system has enough slop built in that maybe a few miscounts here or there could matter a bit less. I'm not defending the electoral system, I'm just saying, maybe that's part of the way it is. But its effect varies with population density.
2. Voter turnout now is horrendous. I know a lot of people still bitching about Gore having the election stolen but who still turn shame-faced when I ask them just how many elections and which ones they've participated in. They use the voting machine fiasco as another can't-win-don't-try whine, but it's no more valid than any other whine. With high populations, you get a larger economy, more at stake, more available for bribery and shenanigans but less offset and therefore less control due to lower participation. In other words, bribe dollars go higher and stretch further when interested parties increase but remain silent. Ask any bookie. I imagine a possible counterpoint being how high voter turnout was for Bush/Gore in Ohio and Florida - but ask yourself how it was that Florida and Ohio became the hinge points on our electoral process and you'll maybe see a counter-counter-point that might illustrate my point (which I'm making clumsily due to lack of pro writing skills) - higher voter turnout alone exposed shenanigans, but those areas became skewed as the nexus due to lower turnout in other areas.
3. I saw on TV, so it's 100% true, that in Australia, voting is mandatory or you face fines or jail time - or worse, very bad looks from your neighbors.
4. I had a Japanese friend / coworker live here during the 2000 elections and he was flabbergasted. He related that in Japan they count the votes by hand, they tally by hand, and have election results within an hour of the polls closing by law. Not to bang or dis retirees, as I have a wild-eyed dream of becoming one someday, but they're not up to the job. Assuming it's true that the/. demographic is truly younger, and I'm not, I'll play dad and tell you something. I once was able to quickly to do log approximations and long multiplication in my head, but time takes its toll - no more. And I'd bet many of you, were you to meet me, would laugh up your sleeves at the has-been/never-was geeze
Pre 9/11 - Just as an Air Force general was about to board a plane, his aide ran up and handed him a satchel. "What's this," asked the general? "It's a bomb, sir," came the deeply intoned reply. "Our analysts have concluded that the chances of a bomb on your plane are 2,458:1 whereas the chances of having TWO bombs on the plane are 2,750,000:1 - this should do the trick, sir!"
(at least) There is no large stack of bins to hassle with. The bins are on a conveyor, sitting sideways, behind the main conveyor. You grab a bin, put your laptop in, grab another, put your briefcase in, and so forth. As you free the bins from the back of the line, they recycle back to the beginning - automatically. No juggling a stack of bins, no sucking up line time, no struggling with cramped quarters w.r.t. bins and lines (ever fly out of San Jose?).
If I had a large inventory of a dead format to dump, or had some lawyer telling me to find a way to avoid a class-action lawsuit for being part of a rip to 750,000 consumers, I'd come out swinging in the media with remarks like that, too.
"Most people that have a good HDTV can tell a large difference in good HD content."
You mean, some people _think_ they can tell the difference (notably TV salesmen and people who've bought a HDTV).
Despite many agreeing with you, I cannot, because like so many things in consumer electronics, users are too often fooled into thinking they're assessing one thing when they're assessing another.
To begin, "good HD content" is already qualitative rather than quantitative. HDLite seems prevalent on DirecTV - please see http://www.stophdlite.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite (probably in that order). I'd consider it "good HD content" and appreciate it a lot compared to SD - but it's not highest quality HD, as might be found with the OTA ABC or CBS broadcasts. What we call HD Lite is more along the lines of what you get from good DV tape - which I'll admit might qualify as "good HD content" but isn't HD.
Next - and I'm going to contradict myself a little bit w.r.t. the above paragraph and I'm ok with that - comes native resolution of the TVs themselves. My DLP has a native res of 1280x720p. The sign at the store calls it a 1080i set - because it accepts and converts 1920x1080i to native (all HDTVs convert whatever to their native formats) - so you have to beware of marketing crap. I haven't looked at the latest models, but most plasmas sold to the date I'd checked last year were native of 1024x768, and LCDs are very often 1366(or so)x768 native res. On those models, you're not going to get 1-to-1 mapping of HD anything without processing inside the TV - so like it or not, further signal degradation occurs in the format changeover.
Next, not all HDTV inputs are created equally. See http://www.dbstalk.com/ if you're a satellite TV user (or want to check my references) and you'll see plenty of newbie posts answered by very qualified TV engineers telling that no, they're not crazy, for their set / brand / production run, the component inputs are noticably better than their HDMI inputs or no, they're not crazy, for the same reasons, the HDMI inputs are noticably better than the component inputs.
Next, tuners. I have 3 ATSC tuners in my house, until recently, two were hooked to the same DLP HDTV - and just switching between the two caused guests - drinking beer and watching the game - to exclaim, "WTF did you just do?!?!?" So, even though the source could be qualified as "good HD content" the differences in h/w quality was easily observable by people with no vested interests in oooohs and aaaaahs of HDTV ownership.
Next, cabling. Yes, yes, yes, anyone paying too much for cables is an idiot. Try it. 'Nuff said. Now add in store cabling (have you ever worked in a consumer electronics store?) and you'll know all bets are off for controlling that part of your experiment.
Next, as you point out, color engines. Two HDTVs with same native resolutions? The one with the better color engine wins everytime - in fact, it's often been shown that given the choice between higher native res and color engine, spend the money on the better engine. My Helio Ocean phone with its 2 megapixel camera looking like crap (knew it before I bought it, didn't care) is an excellent proof point on this.
Next, SD upconverters built in to HDTVs all vary - and there are some very scary good ones. Ditto on set-top boxes.
Finally - the source material itself. Hitchhiker's Guide on HD (Lite) is better than on DVD - it's slight, but not subtle. I switched between the two without telling my wife what the switch was (to see if it was just my bias, as you suggest), and got one of those, "WTF did you just do?" moments again. Take something that really cared about HD during production and it's just no contest.
So - there's a lot more to HD comparisons and good HD content and what to invest in the HDTV world than just what
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know why you were modded off-topic.
I was going to post on what you did, so let me paraphrase you, maybe that mod will change - and karma aside, you make good points, indirectly addressing other comments. So, here goes:
TV is mandated to go all-digital soon. All the broadcasters in my market already have. So they're broadcasting VHF TV and UHF DTV (with and without HD variants).
So what happens to all that VHF and those crowded Eastern corridors when the mandate takes effect? I should research before answering, but in any case, I predict FCC-supported shutdown of the unnecessary VHF broadcasting expenses will be approved and VHF TV will go away. Unused bandwidth, in the far-reaching channels 7 and 8 sweet spot as another poster mentioned, the high population corridors uncrowded - that makes sense.
What will that nice, uncrowded VHF be good for? If you think outside of the box, like BBS-over-HAM guys, or like Microsoft is doing, you repurpose VHF for internet delivery.
Please see my post in this thread, "Don't kid yourselves" for what I choose to post instead.
HTH, compadre.
Yes, I know Microsoft makes money on BD, but from recent articles here, it looks like they may well lose and take a bath on HD DVD.
Market associates BD with Sony and Apple, HD DVD with Microsoft.
This isn't about the internet over TV airwaves.
This is about Microsoft leveraging their new HD knowledge to reuse that bath water to one-up the ease of use and delivery of iTMS movies and the Apple TV Take 2. And it's about giving their DRM a new life for a hegemony.
They're never going to catch up (hell, as if I _know_ this), with the iPod because the Zune and their DRM had egg on it. Their HD DVD is going to have egg on it. In any emerging market, you get the opportunity to be early and win big or lose big.
Microsoft does not want to lose big in HDTV like they did and are in digital music.
This is about Microsoft HDTV and Microsoft DRM. Mark my words.
I agree with you, but here's why I'm posting. I never thought I'd side with Apple's choice of lock-in vs. open, especially with all of the AT&T evil. Now I say this as someone who waited for an iPhone and decided to cancel AT&T instead.
But when I look at things dispassionately, per your inspiration, it becomes obvious to me that this was an insanely smart play on their part. Because of evil, emotional lock-in? No, because of risk management.
I manage risk for a living and it can be quantified as the (complexity/maturity). New smart phones are complex and immature, so there's high risk. If you don't like the risk level you seek to mitigate it. For most US providers, this means reducing complexity. Apple choose to consider the maturity side. ((We can argue all we want that everyone knows it should have used an open sim. What about us CDMA/1x/3G users? Still screwed, so nothing accomplished.)) What would I worry about as a manager launching the product? What drives the market, what drives support.
I did a study of my memory and realized that I knew quite a few people switching from Cingular to Verizon because they liked things like (I think it's called) the Sidekick. Had to go with Verizon to get it, so they did.
Ah, says the study - that model might work. Now, who's a mature provider in this market that doesn't have a neat-o, keen-o device associated with their service. Cingular. Hell, I put up with a RAZR - in many ways a downgrade from my StarTac - because I was OK with Cingular service. Sure they catalog a lot of better phones, but none had the appeal to me - they just seemed like work.
Apple approached Cingular, as I recall, not AT&T, AT&T happened after. So there may have been some merit in the strategy after all.
But look at the equation when the name changes to AT&T. I propose by example: "Honey, I want an iPhone." "They're new, it's Apple, I'm not sure. Plus, they cost more." "Honey, it's backed by AT&T - how could it not be OK?"
This isn't out of thin air. I worked for a summer at a computer store, part time. "Honey, I want one of these new computers." "They're new, it's DOS, I'm not sure. Plus, they cost more." "Honey, it's backed by IBM - how could it not be OK?"
If the response is that I've proved Apple _AND_ Microsoft are similarly evil, fine. But I think I just proved that iPhone / AT&T idea is not without precedent, was sound risk management for the product launch, and was probably driven more by smart, dispassionate, business thinking than just knee-jerk evil.
I thought I would get an iPhone, but I got an Ocean because it was cooler. But I want people to know my definition of cool. I decided it was cooler to keep my iPod separate so I could leave this ball and chain behind and listen to music without other people knowing that I have an iPhone, so I'm always in touch. I decided it was cooler to be able to change my battery. I decided it was cool to have some kind of QWERTY keyboard so I could really deal with SMS and email - I travel for work a lot, this is important. I hate Microsoft mail - a lot - but my phone supports and it's cool that I have that if my company caves to that. I decided it was cool because it wasn't a candy bar style.
I was torn between the OpenMoko/Neo 1973 and the iPhone. But I couldn't wait. So I shopped for the phone. I've followed every thread here religiously and have checked out every phone that someone spoke positively about - but they're weren't cool.
Cool is having just the right device to make you happy for what you want to do. The iPhone is easy, the OpenMoko stuff looks like it's going to be easy, the Ocean is easy. It's personal, it's subjective, but here's an important point to this rant:
Sometimes people choose cool and it doesn't mean shallow or status or stupid or trendy.
I wanted to drop AT&T, but if I'd thought the iPhone was cooler - by more usable for what _I_ want - then I'd have bitten the bullet. But I go
Party on the other end isn't savvy enough to follow that. When I used the Gtalk web interface or the Gtalk desktop tool, I see their status just fine, hence my conclusion.
But it's worth a shot - I'll try to get them to try it again. Thanks for the suggestion.
With iChat AV, I can see idle time (very important, let's me know co-worker is away from console) and client abilities (let's me know if audio or video is supported).
:)
We all agree to change status when idle - but sometimes lack time or are too lazy.
(Oddly, I can see on-line status with the Jabber side of iChat AV for one gtalk guy, but not at all for another guy. I'd either blame Google or iChat for that before XMPP.)
With Jabber, you can also:
- Reach more people, because some people don't like the AIM or iChat Kool Aide even if we do
Many thanks!
So, would I be inferring too much to think that whatever Jingle becomes may well be what Google will ultimately do? I'm guessing that they want traffic, and are supporting Jabber for chat as standards-based, so they'd expect more mindshare supporting the full standard when it is locked in stone.
It's not just mental meandering. I have too many chat clients that go so far, and I'm getting ready to cull the herd. OK, maybe it is mental meandering.
Again, your insight, much appreciated.
I like chatting with AIM users via iChat using voice. If AIM were to go XMPP, I'd think they'd need to support voice to keep their users happy. Google talk's jingle evidently isn't the same as that published by XMPP - see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jingle_(protocol)
So, before I start cheering, I'd like to know if supporting voice for AIM/XMPP will follow the standard or follow Gtalk or what?
Notice how hard they've made it so far - or whatever the correct conclusion is... http://www.google.com/talk/otherclients.html
http://www.pinnaclesys.com/PublicSite/us/Products/Consumer+Products/Advanced+Video/Liquid+Edition/Avid+Liquid+Pro+7.htm
Interesting if the XP upgrade was causal or coincidental... We use XP SP2, firewall off (no external net access), all updates applied. Ensure you have no interrupt conflicts - that may have happened inadvertently with the 2k to XP upgrade.
NI, as you prolly know, claims to support PCMCIA w/ 2.5 - http://zone.ni.com/devzone/cda/tut/p/id/5326 - we didn't see any problems with GPIB+, PCI or USB going from 2.2 to 2.5 - but the PCMCIA doesn't support DMA, so maybe they missed something as you suspect.
Also, make sure you're NOT config'd to go at the max possible rate (HS488) - I don't recall but that config param default may be changed with the newer driver - a no-no if you're DMA incapable (ok, I'm swag'ing here - but it makes sense to me). Check timing params also - sorry, not in front of an NI machine, so this is all by memory....
Also - don't underestimate the flakey GPIB cable bit. I had a similar experience and sadly the days of bullet-proof HP GPIB cables are gone. Open the shell on one today and you'll find nice, vibration-sensitive, press-in wiring connectors. If it's a bad ATN or NDAC wire, then you're just seeing the first problem in the OPC query.
Best luck!
See Appendix C, page 4 of the NI 488.2 User Guide. In addition to cause and cure listed there, the following may apply, from my personal experiences:
1. Bad GPIB cable allowing for intermittent ATN signal
2. If slot based, reseat the NI GPIB card - especially if you have an older VME cage, clean your card contacts and clean your case to ensure no extra circuit paths from dust.
3. If NI-GPIB-USB based, ensure correct contact with the cable in to the USB port - it has no strain relief. Further, check to ensure that the contacts are OK (this is least likely cause).
If you are running with multiple controllers, you're having an application s/w inflicted arbitration problem.
But my most likely suspect for you - if you're running a single controller system - is that your interface isn't the controller in charge (CIC) when issuing the operation complete query (*OPC?). That is remedied by asserting a bus clear or naked (no address) interface clear. However, if your s/w is well structured, you should be querying on an operation in progress, so you wouldn't expect that. You might - if you suspect older hardware to be a problem - trap for the error, issue a bus clear and re-attempt.
Finally, ensure that you have the lastest updates for your 488 driver and VISA from NI, latest firmware from Fluke.
And don't underestimate the other components in the chain. I was troubleshooting a problem with an instrument for days before discovering that another instrument's GPIB interface was card based and his card was loose. Turned out he would change his address, phantomly and on-the-fly causing all sorts of bus malice. Reseating that one did the trick.
If you have access to the NI GPIB bus-sniffing controller, run a bus-sniffing session and you'll likely learn the real cause and cure if the above doesn't help. They're a little pricier, but worth their weight in gold. I wouldn't run a lab without one.
I've used GPIB since it came out as HPIB, almost going back to 78. It's reliable if done right and not requiring many hardware swapouts for a problem this simple.
I don't work for either NI or Fluke, nor do I independently consult on these matters - I just like the protocol.
Apologies to others for being otherwise off-topic.
Not a criticism of what you're saying, just an add-on:
In addition to different possibilities in resolution ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema#Digital_projection ), there's also the fact that for DLP-based system, individual, dedicated RGB projectors are used ( http://www.dlp.com/cinema/what.aspx ). This results in a superior viewing experience, not just because of the RGB breakout, but because the entire color system is superior. An abridged explanation is here - http://entertainment.howstuffworks.com/digital-cinema5.htm - if you're interested in some of the projection mechanics.
Fine. But you're sidestepping the issue that the vacuum tube computers were just smoothing out the square-edged source - paper tape was best. It recorded with _round_ holes - electrons, wires, vacuum tubes - all _round_. And paper tape was pleasingly yellow, not some homeland security version of white/beige/taupe/Mandarin-eggshell or whatever color punchcards represented. The coloration described by computophiles being eliminated by solid state computers actually came from the punch cards.
OK, I've followed this issue closely over the year, have R.lots.TFA - but now, unless I've been missing something, a whole new level of smoke-screening has been added to the subject.
In the referenced article, watermarking now has two attributes (not the only two, no anal please): 1) method exists from large player (in this case, Microsoft) to add digital info to a media file that cannot be circumvented; 2) this info can be used by media distributers to, for example, to give the music industry power to prove pirating or to trace the illegal move of media across the net (goes hand-in-glove with ISP filtering, so the article indirectly said that, whether it meant to or not).
Now, even though the article and everyone here is acknowledging the death of DRM and discussing watermarks - I think it's propaganda and a lot of people are buying.
How is the watermarking discussed here _NOT_ DRM?
Think about it. DRM was not an attempt to lock down media on a single platform (read on before shouting, please). DRM is an attempt to control pirating where the media industry wants to prove and control piracy and prosecute those sharing. Its first incarnation was lock-down on a per-platform basis, which from a business sense is pretty smart - saving money on lawyers and putting things on technology's backs. I think this is just the next incarnation, where they can still put the burden on the backs of others, but now give their lawyers - especially their I-told-you-so lawyers - the technical muscle to be much less embarrassed in court over digital forensic screw-ups.
And to me it seems like they're succeeding. I remember when the debate in the early days was a) how easy DRM would be to circumvent so no one would take it seriously, b) consumers wouldn't stand for it, c) there's nothing wrong with it if it were implemented properly, and d) _no one_ here condones pirates, it doesn't interfere with the digital stream too badly, so this may be an acceptable course of action if done right.
So. To me, this thread sounds like the exact same discussions, with s/DRM/watermark/g.
Somebuddy square me away, please. How is this not DRM Phase II and a propaganda victory for the dark media overlords? I don't get it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Quld5950v6w
Alternate video - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lSaYx6ttuE&feature=related
5 lies about Poland (try not to knock the spelling - check your own) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p67IVwRUilc&feature=related
Here's the kernel of truth underlying all those Polish jokes - most people can't seem to pull themselves up, so they choose someone superior to pull down to make themselves feel better.
Best luck to you.
Ok, let me try to add this up. As I recall, internet radio was threatened by the bully-arm of the RIAA, SoundExchange, forcing royalty payments even for non-RIAA affiliated artists (or however the legally correct way to express that, if there is one). Remember this one, gang? http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/29/0335224
So, how does this add up? Does EMI pulling away from RIAA defang SoundExchange thereby seriously reducing the threat to internet radio? Or in the ironic comedy of the new century, does the RIAA, with sounds of a death rattle (added for drama, I'm shameless), turn around and unleash SoundExchange on EMI and bring suit under the same grounds as the attack on internet radio?
1. I just got an iPod, I might check out the iTMS, but I'm not going to buy ala carte, I have CDs to rip.
2. I either just tried a free iTMS song and like it, or bit the bullet out of curiosity. With my existing iPod.
3. I've heard good iTMS, the price is right, so when I got my iPod, I checked them out and got hooked.
4. I own a non-iPod portable music player and I'm excited about the buzz of the iTMS. In fact, it's so great, I'm giving up brand X to be locked in to an iPod.
People don't flock to iPods because the iTMS is so great - they check out the iTMS because they want to see if their iPods can get any cooler.
Your expression makes theoretical sense, but it doesn't seem to fit the real world as I know it.
Sony - FUD. Redundant by design.
In the end the anonymous vote allows us to vote secure in our liberty. This has always been everyone's first priority. It is only a second priority that the vote be accurate and the result a representation of the public will. We are working on how to achieve this second without sacrificing the first.
You are beyond correct.
/. demographic is truly younger, and I'm not, I'll play dad and tell you something. I once was able to quickly to do log approximations and long multiplication in my head, but time takes its toll - no more. And I'd bet many of you, were you to meet me, would laugh up your sleeves at the has-been/never-was geeze
People advocating non-secrecy are solving a problem that doesn't exist. I don't intend this as a troll or flamebait - I'm sure others are intelligent and sincere - but not used to the possible forms of malfeasance, bribery, organized crime and other shenanigans that need controlled. Here in the USA, we have a special brand of corruption that relies on too few people paying attention to the electoral process. Move things into a database - and all that's needed is to control the organization controlling the database. Give out tokens so you can cross-check your vote and all that's needed is to control the token makers and givers.
Here's my take:
1. The electoral process was originally designed blah blah Great Compromise blah we all know that - but it survived, I believe, because it was a numeric desensitizer. Suppose you have 10 states of exact same population - 10 people - 100 total. Six people in six states total vote for one guy - 36 out of 100 votes - and that guys wins by majority. But take the real world as it evolved in the US where states are not homogenous. With high voter turnout, _perhaps_ shenanigans were more easily found out, or were generally known but accepted by an impoverished blue-collar class (I'm looking at you, Eastern Metroplex political machines) or were not fully known by a sparser population, ignorant of land interests (I'm looking at you, dead-people-voting-great-Western-region) - but overall, the system has enough slop built in that maybe a few miscounts here or there could matter a bit less. I'm not defending the electoral system, I'm just saying, maybe that's part of the way it is. But its effect varies with population density.
2. Voter turnout now is horrendous. I know a lot of people still bitching about Gore having the election stolen but who still turn shame-faced when I ask them just how many elections and which ones they've participated in. They use the voting machine fiasco as another can't-win-don't-try whine, but it's no more valid than any other whine. With high populations, you get a larger economy, more at stake, more available for bribery and shenanigans but less offset and therefore less control due to lower participation. In other words, bribe dollars go higher and stretch further when interested parties increase but remain silent. Ask any bookie. I imagine a possible counterpoint being how high voter turnout was for Bush/Gore in Ohio and Florida - but ask yourself how it was that Florida and Ohio became the hinge points on our electoral process and you'll maybe see a counter-counter-point that might illustrate my point (which I'm making clumsily due to lack of pro writing skills) - higher voter turnout alone exposed shenanigans, but those areas became skewed as the nexus due to lower turnout in other areas.
3. I saw on TV, so it's 100% true, that in Australia, voting is mandatory or you face fines or jail time - or worse, very bad looks from your neighbors.
4. I had a Japanese friend / coworker live here during the 2000 elections and he was flabbergasted. He related that in Japan they count the votes by hand, they tally by hand, and have election results within an hour of the polls closing by law. Not to bang or dis retirees, as I have a wild-eyed dream of becoming one someday, but they're not up to the job. Assuming it's true that the
Pre 9/11 - Just as an Air Force general was about to board a plane, his aide ran up and handed him a satchel. "What's this," asked the general? "It's a bomb, sir," came the deeply intoned reply. "Our analysts have concluded that the chances of a bomb on your plane are 2,458:1 whereas the chances of having TWO bombs on the plane are 2,750,000:1 - this should do the trick, sir!"
Why do I feel like TSA thinks that way?
(at least) There is no large stack of bins to hassle with. The bins are on a conveyor, sitting sideways, behind the main conveyor. You grab a bin, put your laptop in, grab another, put your briefcase in, and so forth. As you free the bins from the back of the line, they recycle back to the beginning - automatically. No juggling a stack of bins, no sucking up line time, no struggling with cramped quarters w.r.t. bins and lines (ever fly out of San Jose?).
If I had a large inventory of a dead format to dump, or had some lawyer telling me to find a way to avoid a class-action lawsuit for being part of a rip to 750,000 consumers, I'd come out swinging in the media with remarks like that, too.
Dooooood .... I hope you meant Minnie Mouse...
I suppose anything is possible. However, I'd assume it was more to do with the fact that NEXTStep was BSD on a Mach kernel, essentially.
:)
Maybe it was more a case of the devil you know.
"Most people that have a good HDTV can tell a large difference in good HD content."
You mean, some people _think_ they can tell the difference (notably TV salesmen and people who've bought a HDTV).
Despite many agreeing with you, I cannot, because like so many things in consumer electronics, users are too often fooled into thinking they're assessing one thing when they're assessing another.
To begin, "good HD content" is already qualitative rather than quantitative. HDLite seems prevalent on DirecTV - please see http://www.stophdlite.com/ and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_Lite (probably in that order). I'd consider it "good HD content" and appreciate it a lot compared to SD - but it's not highest quality HD, as might be found with the OTA ABC or CBS broadcasts. What we call HD Lite is more along the lines of what you get from good DV tape - which I'll admit might qualify as "good HD content" but isn't HD.
Next - and I'm going to contradict myself a little bit w.r.t. the above paragraph and I'm ok with that - comes native resolution of the TVs themselves. My DLP has a native res of 1280x720p. The sign at the store calls it a 1080i set - because it accepts and converts 1920x1080i to native (all HDTVs convert whatever to their native formats) - so you have to beware of marketing crap. I haven't looked at the latest models, but most plasmas sold to the date I'd checked last year were native of 1024x768, and LCDs are very often 1366(or so)x768 native res. On those models, you're not going to get 1-to-1 mapping of HD anything without processing inside the TV - so like it or not, further signal degradation occurs in the format changeover.
Next, not all HDTV inputs are created equally. See http://www.dbstalk.com/ if you're a satellite TV user (or want to check my references) and you'll see plenty of newbie posts answered by very qualified TV engineers telling that no, they're not crazy, for their set / brand / production run, the component inputs are noticably better than their HDMI inputs or no, they're not crazy, for the same reasons, the HDMI inputs are noticably better than the component inputs.
Next, tuners. I have 3 ATSC tuners in my house, until recently, two were hooked to the same DLP HDTV - and just switching between the two caused guests - drinking beer and watching the game - to exclaim, "WTF did you just do?!?!?" So, even though the source could be qualified as "good HD content" the differences in h/w quality was easily observable by people with no vested interests in oooohs and aaaaahs of HDTV ownership.
Next, cabling. Yes, yes, yes, anyone paying too much for cables is an idiot. Try it. 'Nuff said. Now add in store cabling (have you ever worked in a consumer electronics store?) and you'll know all bets are off for controlling that part of your experiment.
Next, as you point out, color engines. Two HDTVs with same native resolutions? The one with the better color engine wins everytime - in fact, it's often been shown that given the choice between higher native res and color engine, spend the money on the better engine. My Helio Ocean phone with its 2 megapixel camera looking like crap (knew it before I bought it, didn't care) is an excellent proof point on this.
Next, SD upconverters built in to HDTVs all vary - and there are some very scary good ones. Ditto on set-top boxes.
Finally - the source material itself. Hitchhiker's Guide on HD (Lite) is better than on DVD - it's slight, but not subtle. I switched between the two without telling my wife what the switch was (to see if it was just my bias, as you suggest), and got one of those, "WTF did you just do?" moments again. Take something that really cared about HD during production and it's just no contest.
So - there's a lot more to HD comparisons and good HD content and what to invest in the HDTV world than just what
Could have, but didn't get too far with it. Thanks for the catch.