The thing that I find cool about modern video gtame peripherals is that they seem more standardized than in the past (with the exception of the Sega Genesis/Atari 2600 controllers.)
Perhaps the connection is more standard, but I also see a fair amount of non standard shit going on, and not just in video game peripherals. The bundled Kinect doesn't come with the adapter so you can connect it to your PC (or older Xbox360). Don't fool yourself for one moment -- If MS could have ignored the existing XBox360 interface your Kinect they would have gladly made it more difficult to connect a Kinect to your PC.
Xbox360 headsets have nonstandard pin-outs, so you can't use other PC headsets on on XBox or vise versa. Garmin's GPS uses a proprietary USB cable (having a small resistor across two pins), and refuses to charge when connected to a PC or via standard USB plugged into a voltage inverter. Zune uses a standard AV connection (Camcorder 3.5mm), but they swap the audio & video jack pins so that you have to plug white to yellow & vise versa, (many assume only the more expensive Zune brand cable works). Even the power cable on a Apple G5 I serviced last week was non-standard (-_-) instead of ('.'). The iPhone/iPad Touch & Zune use encrypted protocols (keys changed on each firmware upgrade) so you can't use them without the crappy bundled media manager software.
They either use USB or Bluetooth, and to the 360's credit you can still use its proprietary wireless pad on a PC.
The 360's wireless is NOT bluetooth. You must use MS's proprietary wireless receiver. The controller will not work though a blutooth receiver (built-in or external). The play&charge USB cable is for charging only, and won't allow you to connect it to your PC.
Also, What's the use of a standard plug (USB), if the protocol or other proprietary quirks are introduced to make it incompatible (ala Zune, iPad Touch, Garmin resistor).
I have to disagree with you on the standardization trend; To me, it seems that more companies are figuring out how to proprieterroize the "standard" connections; less of my "standard" cables work with my devices.
PS: Just because the end that plugs into your PC is a standard USB connector, doesn't mean the end that plugs into your device isn't a proprietary shaped USB connector...
Turns out that Japan's Supreme Court overruled lower court decisions confirming fears that to even facilitate this functionality is a copyright infringement on the work that is being transferred.
Does this mean that Japanese PCs can have either a TV-Tuner-Card or a Remote-Desktop-Server, but not both?
If so, I guess this makes every "Media Center" PC w/ an Ethernet port illegal.
Sounds like a new app will be hitting the Jailbroken Apple TV soon.
In other news: The MPAA has successfully sued every ISP for billions of dollars in copyright violations. Turns out, Every Internet packet is copied each time it traverses a router between you and the content provider. ASCAP says it plans to sue RAM manufacturers; During the "performance" of any song via computer with storage device, an unlicensed verbatim copy must be made into RAM.
(Hint: If copyrights are so resistant to reform then simply outlaw the Internet and Computers -- Their fundamental designs can not comply with current copyright laws.)
If your data is stored in a cloud, then it is bound to get trawled through multiple times per year due to subpoenas for other people.
I'm comfortable with that. I'll let as many policing forces trawl through my Gmail as the government agencies desire, provided that I'm allowed to use (PGP) end to end encryption to my heart's content.
The FBI has been looking into requiring online services to be able to comply with a wire-tap order (and decrypt any encrypted data) -- Google can't comply with a demand to decrypt my data as long as Gmail lets me send arbitrary textual data and/or attachments -- The next step will be outlawing end to end encryption; Mark my words.
My cloud has a silver lining -- an envelope of end to end encryption.
Everybody knows any P2P protocol is strictly used for pirating, so then it's alright!
Those small companies and users are probably infringing something somewhere too, so they're all criminals anyways.
Yargh! Those lilly-livered scallywags wot call themselves "Producers" are pedalin' stolen wares foisted from real Content Producers under legal duress! Aye! The true artisans be shackled and made to slave away in concerts and promo gigs to make ends meat.
I say we smartly keel-haul the dirty bilge rats! Nay, lay siege and claim the bountiful media booty, make like Robin Hood with the lot of it, then scuttle the lot of 'em!
Avast ye thick skulled brutes -- Will not the art-slaves still earn a living prostituting at promo parties, late night shows, and musical venues?
I don't know about you, but when I'm using a mouse my fingers are resting on the buttons constantly. Asside from the fact that I don't (yet) have transparent fingers, adding a touch screen to the mouse buttons would just make "clicking" strange... Perhaps if the touch screens were just buttons with screens on top it would make sense... I have a keyboard like that... (I use Dvorak and got tired of swapping key-caps.)
I might be able to use the soft buttons when I'm using my mouse in 10-key mode. Honestly, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.
Is it really that innovative to combine a few features of the the two products I already have? Seems like a small improvement, but patent worthy? Psh, when it comes to USPTO, if it ain't patented yet, you can get a patent for it. (I think it's time to get rid of patents.)
This lawsuit is exactly what is needed to put Congress and the FCC in their place. They really think that they can regulate anything in their pompous way.
I am pleased as well, for Verizon is playing right into the FCCs plan to re-classify the Internet as Title 2 ( like telephone ).
Congress does not own Verizon's infrastructure, Verizon does. Just like Congress does not own your house, or your car, or you, they should not be able to infringe on private property at their whim.
Congress does not own your telephone line, but the FCC has regulations that force telephone services to play fair.
I think that purposefully congesting your network, even refusing free equipment to make it better, just so Netflix has no other option than to pay $EXTORTION to Comcast for co-location of servers is an unfair business practice; I think this should be barred by the FCC + Net Neutrality -- However, the current Net Neutrality regulations do not even address forced tiering issues such as these.
Given that the current Net Neutrality rules specifically leave wireless providers unregulated, and lack any teeth when it comes to wired providers (no artificial interruptions or blockages? Damn, that should be a given) I really don't see what Verizon is pissed off about -- They're digging their own grave.
If the FCC can't impose these common sense rules on ISPs, it will have to reclassify the Internet as Title II.
Of course Google and Facebook don't like Verizon or any other ISP being able to discriminate traffic. So why doesn't Google and/or Facebook open their own ISP operation and compete with Verizon and prove to them that the better business model might be to not discriminate traffic? Please, government is not the answer! It very rarely is. Politicians do not represent us nor do they have god-like knowledge of the best way to do things.
You missed your history lesson and are doomed to repeat it. Remember the Big Bell monopoly over telecom, and its breakup? We now have competitive prices for long distance, and a bit more choice in providers as well.
My point is this: I use Skype (and other VOIPs) as my primary "telephone" system. I do not even need a land line, and only need a cell phone while I'm not in range of WiFi.
The FCC regulates telecom. I see no reason that they should not regulate ISPs under the same rules. It's all just communications folks. The Internet delivers on-demand TV, it delivers VOIP telephone service, it currently obliterates the concept of "long distance".
Unregulated, the ISPs will eventually charge per service and "long distance" packet charges (Perhaps they charge point A, perhaps point B?). The "servers" getting charged double may be fine with you, but please realize there is no such thing as a "client" or "server" beyond the application layer (down at the ISP layers it's all just packets).
When you realize that when you use VOIP, play online Games, or go "To the cloud!"(tm) and stream your own media to yourself on the go, you are running a server. When your ISP starts double billing you and causing unnecessary service interruptions, then maybe you'll change your tune about Net Neutrality -- Or maybe YOU will start your own ISP (LMAO), to combat these unfair practices? (Without regulation the ISPs don't have to let you create your ISP and access the existing infrastructure -- Just like the good ol' Bell Monopoly Days; Good luck with that!)
Also Note: My ISP has a clause in their TOS that states I am not to run any servers (specifically mentions game servers) -- When I play XBox Live I risk getting my ISP connection terminated due to TOS violation. My fast connection gets me chosen as the game server sometimes, without my control or notification -- It's all just packets folks!
Pfffft, tell that to Daniel Dantas, whos encrypted (w/ TrueCrypt) hard drive withstood the FBI's prying eyes for over 5 years...
If someone with a supercomputer is trying to break your encryption, I would think you have bigger problems to worry about.
Yes, in this case you do have big problems to worry about, whether or not your secret files stay secret doesn't have to be one of them. Note: If the strength of your encryption is what protects you from even bigger problems then perhaps it's wise to not overlook encryption.
I concede that today's encryption may eventually be broken by future computers -- I take comfort in such assumptions. Unlike information lost to dead languages, the future's Setec Astronomy might be able to decode their archives of today's data -- However, today's people will have gone long since the data could have been detrimental to anyone.
Or, in laymen's terms: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I've seen comments in this topic about how only a small percentage of people actually want to root their Android devices. Sure, it's a small percentage, but its a very vocal percentage and their sentiments are infectious (I've heard outrage against Motorola's e-fuse from people who don't even know what a ROM is).
If a portion of your platform's developer community is adamantly against e-fuse, then in may make sense to take heed -- especially if apps are important to the success of your device.
TL;DR: Percentage of users that want root != Percentage of people pissed off about hardware DRM.
If you outlaw exploits, only outlaws will have exploits.
Seriously folks, It's illegal for me to craft a website that exploits the "attack toolkit" to disable the attack. I'm forbidden from fighting back...
If someone breaks into my house and threatens me with a shotgun, it's perfectly legal for me to use my pistol on them; The same is not true for software. If my machine is infected by a botnet it's illegal for me to exploit the botnet to disable the threat.
Take heed folks: Without the right to bear arms we have no means to protect ourselves. Without the right to bear technology we have no means to protect ourselves.
These attack toolkits will continue to work effectively for only as long as it's illegal for folks like me to exploit and disable botnets & attack toolkits.
If we're going to classify strong encryption as a munitions and have government funded "Cyber Warfare" and "Cyber Defense" then I demand a right to Cyber Defend our Cyber Selfs.
What better way to find a use for a Moonstalk, the lunar equivalent of a terrestrial Space Elevator...
Awe damn-it, When I heard Moonstalk I thought it would involve Rockin' out for days on end and wallowing in peace and free-love with the Lunarians -- Like a Lunar Woodstock.
This seems foolish to me. The other planets of the solar system are not good real estate, and there needs to be a clear justification for why humans should colonize space at all. If the justification is profit, then the US federal government doesn't need to fund it with tax money. If the motivation is the Larry Niven quip that "the dinosaurs didn't have a space program," then it's not at all clear that moon-then-Mars is the best way to go, and if we want to find out the best way to go, flying nationalistic propaganda missions for the US is not the best way to do it. The best way to go may be, for example, a space station orbiting Europa. We just don't know right now.
I think it's foolish to think that we will ever find out "the best way" to distribute humanity (to prevent Human extinction) if we never try to experimentally and/or temporarily populate our closest celestial bodies.
If we wait until "the best" procedure is theoretically proposed we still won't know for sure until we try -- Better to try a bit now with what we have in order to advance the science of extra-planetary habitation and accelerate the discovery of the optimal procedure than to only day-dream until we're all extinct.
The journey of a thousand light-years must begin with a single plank length.
2. on a 28 days for a "full engine cycle" with probably about 1/3 of this duration in a situation where the gradient is not good enough (extremities of your "tube" too close to the day-night terminators) - need hell of a lot of "thermal inertia" to get the most of the "max temperature differential" period)
somehow... I don't think it's gonna work too well.
Wait, Terminators are on the moon? As we speak?! Hmmm, makes sense -- That's probably a good angle to cast the Sky-Net from...
Seriously though: What about the moon's south pole? It gets sun all the time.
My first exposure to source code was BASIC on the Apple II in elementary school -- computer lab.
However, it wasn't until a year later when I got an IBM with MSDOS + QBasic, that I was able spend enough time with source code to discover how to program. The books were all gibberish to me, but learning via modifying GORILLAS.BAS was a satisfying / rewarding experience.
I've seen lots of today's young programmers enlightened by open sourced games (like Doom, Quake, etc.), Perhaps Angry Birds source will be available in time as well.
openSUSE has packaged about 50 activities in total for Sugar, with more activities available for installation from the sugarlabs.org activities repository. Activities that haven't been packaged can be downloaded directly from http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ and installed by the user through the browse interface (the repository is similar to firefox addons.)
Make an observation, and then come up with a theory to explain it. From observations we know that there is some type of mass out there affecting gravity. We call it 'dark matter' because we don't know what it is. This isn't an aether theory, it's based on real observations.
So, let me get this straight, all empty space is assumed to have the same "density" properties?
When we observe gravity as a warping of space, is it not reasonable to think that the warping of space might cause an effect similar to gravity, without requiring any mass at all?
My question is this: Why do we assume that all "empty space" is uniform?
Could it be that "dark matter" is simply "empty space" that is naturally "curved"?
One theory is that our universe exists on a "(mem)brane". What's to say that the membrane itself is perfectly smooth?
Perhaps it was, but the big bang (or other past universe-scale forces) caused ripples in the fabric of space-time itself.
Perhaps the variations in the space-time fabric density explain why energy/matter began to "clump" together, perhaps it just pooled into the valleys.
TL;DR: Dark matter may actually be nothing at all -- thus explaining: Why we can't observe dark matter; Why normal energy & matter pass right through it; Why the big bang's energy was not uniformly distributed.
How can "IT-required OS, the BS apps that monitor your computer,... the corporate anti-virus, etc." be trusted if to work properly if the underlying system is compromised?
Rootkit infected systems lie to AVs and spoof OS file system APIs -- they can even BS the "BS apps" into showing "all green, I'm still secure, not leaking any data at all."
No matter the encapsulation method you use, if the outer layer is malicious all interior security can be compromised.
The only way to ensure that I can't take home my computer and install a rootkit is to prevent me from booting my own OS i.e. the hardware would have to use treacherous^Wtrusted computing to ensure only cryptographically signed code can run.
In this event, I can no longer do whatever I want to the system -- it is by definition not "[My] Own Computer", as TFA questions. Given that it's not actually MY computer, I will purchase another machine that will let me do whatever I want and this one will be mine.
I will resist spending any of my own money to acquire/upgrade the other locked down machine, and we'll be in the same boat that we are in now -- Newer personal computing devices, and older devices for work (that I am not allowed to keep upon termination of employment).
I love the fact that there is a common desire to preserve our historic technological achievements.
Working reproductions of dying / dead machines are a great learning tool -- We are all truly standing on the shoulders of giants today.
I feel that efforts such as rebuilding the EDSAC are in the same vein as those that would create emulators for our out of production computers and video game systems as a cheap way to preserve the past.
What good is the EDSAC or an Emulator without a sampling of the programs the systems used to run? Surely different people would attribute different degrees of importance to different programs -- Thankfully digital storage is abundant and cheap enough that we are capable of preserving entire catalogs of programs.
Notice however, that the more relevant, beneficial and useful a replica or emulator is, the more illegal it is to produce due to patents and copyrights. I fear that if the current copyright laws could be enforced absolutely, we stand to loose important parts of our history and culture for no other reason but greed. Given the long terms of copyright, it's a safe assumption that much of our digital heritage could decay and be lost before it's legal to reproduce it -- Even under good conditions CDs, Magnetic and Solid State Drives will all fail before 70 years after the author's life has elapsed.
I'm very wary of DRM and the DMCA -- Today we can recreate past works to better understand the significance of the shoulders on which we stand; Tomorrow we may find ourselves searching for footing that has long since crumbled away.
H.264 is a standard; not a de-facto, or "industry" standard, but one adopted by an international standards body with wide representation. It publishes specs. If you build a part to do something with H.264 video, as long as it conforms to spec, it will work with others' products.
... ?? Your point is? I believe what you're referring to is a documented format. Any such documented audio/video encoding format that conforms to its specification can be read by any video decoder that conforms to the same respective spec.
In fact: Data from any type of encoder conforming to a spec can be read it's corresponding decoder! ( GnuZip reads WinZipped files... )
This means, Theora, VP8, MP4, MP3, and even Windows Media Audio (WMA) and Win Media Audio (WMV) have multiple implementations -- they are all "open standards" in that anyone can create a complying implementation via the format's documentation.
You know, like the way any unlocked GSM phone works on any GSM network that operates on the same frequency band. [H.264 is] ideal for startups, because you only need expertise in your own narrow product field, not in the entire much broader space.
The same can be said for VP8, Windows Media, MP3, Theora, Vorbis, and virtually every existing codec known to man.
The difference is that unlike H.264 "standards boards", VP8 and Theora do not pursue license fees, and claim no patents.
Startups would be more wise to go with a codec that is not patent encumbered, and costs $0.00 to license... Not H.264.
To build say an innovative silicon decoder you don't need to know how to build an encoder, [blah blah blah blah blah blah]
Documented file formats enable multiple or partial implementations of codecs... Self evident really, no need to iterate every type of implementation that can exist or re-repeat yourself, we get it.
And while you occasionally run into interop issues this is positively nothing compared to the alternative of having inhouse expertise for *everything*.
Yes, it's quite foolish to build an inhouse codec, but H.264 isn't the only codec out there.
Hell, you can create a wrapper that allows an interface to external codec libraries in order to support all of the codecs I've mentioned above... However, if you ship a product with a patented encumbered codec, you must pay the licensing fee to MS, MPEG-LA, or other such patent holders.
The license fee for VP8, and Vorbis is $0.00.
Compared to other costs, licensing fees are fairly trivial. $100k doesn't even buy a competent engineer for a year.
Yep, and for absolutely NO FEE you can just use Theora/Vorbis, or VP8. $100k is 10000000% more than $1, and infinity% more than $0.
Fact is, Chrome is a derivative of Chromium -- If Google goes with H.264 then Chormium would have to have H.264 support, or else Google has to maintain a separate video branch in Chrome.
Unfortunately, If I compile Chromium Source Code that has H.264 support I'm forbidden from distributing the binaries unless I pay the licensing fees.
From a web browser "start-up" perspective, it's best for Google NOT to burden the "start-up" with licensing fees or maintaining it's own incompatible video branch if the "start-up" were to fork Chromium.
Thus, Chromium currently has no H.264 support (in favor of VP8 and Theora/Vorbis), and Chrome is simply adopting the same behavior as upstream.
Additionally: I could have just s/ H.264 / WMV / in your post, and made the reductio ad absurdum argument for Microsoft's proprietary format -- but my heart wouldn't be in it.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder what would be the minimum legal height at which one can fly.
Not low enough to be of any concern to us basement dwelling slashdotters.
Wait... unless they equip it with ground penetrating radar!
[adds another layer of tin-foil to the basement ceiling]
The thing that I find cool about modern video gtame peripherals is that they seem more standardized than in the past (with the exception of the Sega Genesis/Atari 2600
controllers.)
Perhaps the connection is more standard, but I also see a fair amount of non standard shit going on, and not just in video game peripherals. The bundled Kinect doesn't come with the adapter so you can connect it to your PC (or older Xbox360). Don't fool yourself for one moment -- If MS could have ignored the existing XBox360 interface your Kinect they would have gladly made it more difficult to connect a Kinect to your PC.
Xbox360 headsets have nonstandard pin-outs, so you can't use other PC headsets on on XBox or vise versa. Garmin's GPS uses a proprietary USB cable (having a small resistor across two pins), and refuses to charge when connected to a PC or via standard USB plugged into a voltage inverter. Zune uses a standard AV connection (Camcorder 3.5mm), but they swap the audio & video jack pins so that you have to plug white to yellow & vise versa, (many assume only the more expensive Zune brand cable works). Even the power cable on a Apple G5 I serviced last week was non-standard (-_-) instead of ('.'). The iPhone/iPad Touch & Zune use encrypted protocols (keys changed on each firmware upgrade) so you can't use them without the crappy bundled media manager software.
They either use USB or Bluetooth, and to the 360's credit you can still use its proprietary wireless pad on a PC.
The 360's wireless is NOT bluetooth. You must use MS's proprietary wireless receiver. The controller will not work though a blutooth receiver (built-in or external). The play&charge USB cable is for charging only, and won't allow you to connect it to your PC.
Also, What's the use of a standard plug (USB), if the protocol or other proprietary quirks are introduced to make it incompatible (ala Zune, iPad Touch, Garmin resistor).
I have to disagree with you on the standardization trend; To me, it seems that more companies are figuring out how to proprieterroize the "standard" connections; less of my "standard" cables work with my devices.
PS: Just because the end that plugs into your PC is a standard USB connector, doesn't mean the end that plugs into your device isn't a proprietary shaped USB connector...
Turns out that Japan's Supreme Court overruled lower court decisions confirming fears that to even facilitate this functionality is a copyright infringement on the work that is being transferred.
Does this mean that Japanese PCs can have either a TV-Tuner-Card or a Remote-Desktop-Server, but not both?
If so, I guess this makes every "Media Center" PC w/ an Ethernet port illegal.
Sounds like a new app will be hitting the Jailbroken Apple TV soon.
In other news: The MPAA has successfully sued every ISP for billions of dollars in copyright violations. Turns out, Every Internet packet is copied each time it traverses a router between you and the content provider. ASCAP says it plans to sue RAM manufacturers; During the "performance" of any song via computer with storage device, an unlicensed verbatim copy must be made into RAM.
(Hint: If copyrights are so resistant to reform then simply outlaw the Internet and Computers -- Their fundamental designs can not comply with current copyright laws.)
Is what beer he prefers, when he does drink beer.
Voiceover: He's Julian Asange, the most dangerous man in the world.
[Pull in to frame up Assange sitting in a dimly lit booth between two beautiful, yet angry women.]
[Half a box of expired condoms is slightly out of focus in the foreground]
Assange: I don't always drink beer; Hovever, when I do, I drink Arrogant Bastard Ale.
If your data is stored in a cloud, then it is bound to get trawled through multiple times per year due to subpoenas for other people.
I'm comfortable with that. I'll let as many policing forces trawl through my Gmail as the government agencies desire, provided that I'm allowed to use (PGP) end to end encryption to my heart's content.
The FBI has been looking into requiring online services to be able to comply with a wire-tap order (and decrypt any encrypted data) -- Google can't comply with a demand to decrypt my data as long as Gmail lets me send arbitrary textual data and/or attachments -- The next step will be outlawing end to end encryption; Mark my words.
My cloud has a silver lining -- an envelope of end to end encryption.
Everybody knows any P2P protocol is strictly used for pirating, so then it's alright!
Those small companies and users are probably infringing something somewhere too, so they're all criminals anyways.
Yargh! Those lilly-livered scallywags wot call themselves "Producers" are pedalin' stolen wares foisted from real Content Producers under legal duress! Aye! The true artisans be shackled and made to slave away in concerts and promo gigs to make ends meat.
I say we smartly keel-haul the dirty bilge rats! Nay, lay siege and claim the bountiful media booty, make like Robin Hood with the lot of it, then scuttle the lot of 'em!
Avast ye thick skulled brutes -- Will not the art-slaves still earn a living prostituting at promo parties, late night shows, and musical venues?
(A cutlass twice sharpened slices doubly)
I already have a number pad that is a mouse.
I don't know about you, but when I'm using a mouse my fingers are resting on the buttons constantly. Asside from the fact that I don't (yet) have transparent fingers, adding a touch screen to the mouse buttons would just make "clicking" strange... Perhaps if the touch screens were just buttons with screens on top it would make sense... I have a keyboard like that... (I use Dvorak and got tired of swapping key-caps.)
I might be able to use the soft buttons when I'm using my mouse in 10-key mode. Honestly, this looks like a solution in search of a problem.
Is it really that innovative to combine a few features of the the two products I already have? Seems like a small improvement, but patent worthy? Psh, when it comes to USPTO, if it ain't patented yet, you can get a patent for it. (I think it's time to get rid of patents.)
This lawsuit is exactly what is needed to put Congress and the FCC in their place. They really think that they can regulate anything in their pompous way.
I am pleased as well, for Verizon is playing right into the FCCs plan to re-classify the Internet as Title 2 ( like telephone ).
Congress does not own Verizon's infrastructure, Verizon does. Just like Congress does not own your house, or your car, or you, they should not be able to infringe on private property at their whim.
Congress does not own your telephone line, but the FCC has regulations that force telephone services to play fair.
I think that purposefully congesting your network, even refusing free equipment to make it better, just so Netflix has no other option than to pay $EXTORTION to Comcast for co-location of servers is an unfair business practice; I think this should be barred by the FCC + Net Neutrality -- However, the current Net Neutrality regulations do not even address forced tiering issues such as these.
Given that the current Net Neutrality rules specifically leave wireless providers unregulated, and lack any teeth when it comes to wired providers (no artificial interruptions or blockages? Damn, that should be a given) I really don't see what Verizon is pissed off about -- They're digging their own grave.
If the FCC can't impose these common sense rules on ISPs, it will have to reclassify the Internet as Title II.
Of course Google and Facebook don't like Verizon or any other ISP being able to discriminate traffic. So why doesn't Google and/or Facebook open their own ISP operation and compete with Verizon and prove to them that the better business model might be to not discriminate traffic? Please, government is not the answer! It very rarely is. Politicians do not represent us nor do they have god-like knowledge of the best way to do things.
You missed your history lesson and are doomed to repeat it. Remember the Big Bell monopoly over telecom, and its breakup? We now have competitive prices for long distance, and a bit more choice in providers as well.
My point is this: I use Skype (and other VOIPs) as my primary "telephone" system.
I do not even need a land line, and only need a cell phone while I'm not in range of WiFi.
The FCC regulates telecom. I see no reason that they should not regulate ISPs under the same rules. It's all just communications folks. The Internet delivers on-demand TV, it delivers VOIP telephone service, it currently obliterates the concept of "long distance".
Unregulated, the ISPs will eventually charge per service and "long distance" packet charges (Perhaps they charge point A, perhaps point B?). The "servers" getting charged double may be fine with you, but please realize there is no such thing as a "client" or "server" beyond the application layer (down at the ISP layers it's all just packets).
When you realize that when you use VOIP, play online Games, or go "To the cloud!"(tm) and stream your own media to yourself on the go, you are running a server. When your ISP starts double billing you and causing unnecessary service interruptions, then maybe you'll change your tune about Net Neutrality -- Or maybe YOU will start your own ISP (LMAO), to combat these unfair practices? (Without regulation the ISPs don't have to let you create your ISP and access the existing infrastructure -- Just like the good ol' Bell Monopoly Days; Good luck with that!)
Also Note: My ISP has a clause in their TOS that states I am not to run any servers (specifically mentions game servers) -- When I play XBox Live I risk getting my ISP connection terminated due to TOS violation. My fast connection gets me chosen as the game server sometimes, without my control or notification -- It's all just packets folks!
but won't stop people with supercomputers.
Pfffft, tell that to Daniel Dantas, whos encrypted (w/ TrueCrypt) hard drive withstood the FBI's prying eyes for over 5 years...
If someone with a supercomputer is trying to break your encryption, I would think you have bigger problems to worry about.
Yes, in this case you do have big problems to worry about, whether or not your secret files stay secret doesn't have to be one of them. Note: If the strength of your encryption is what protects you from even bigger problems then perhaps it's wise to not overlook encryption.
I concede that today's encryption may eventually be broken by future computers -- I take comfort in such assumptions. Unlike information lost to dead languages, the future's Setec Astronomy might be able to decode their archives of today's data -- However, today's people will have gone long since the data could have been detrimental to anyone.
Or, in laymen's terms: The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
I've seen comments in this topic about how only a small percentage of people actually want to root their Android devices. Sure, it's a small percentage, but its a very vocal percentage and their sentiments are infectious (I've heard outrage against Motorola's e-fuse from people who don't even know what a ROM is).
If a portion of your platform's developer community is adamantly against e-fuse, then in may make sense to take heed -- especially if apps are important to the success of your device.
TL;DR: Percentage of users that want root != Percentage of people pissed off about hardware DRM.
If you outlaw exploits, only outlaws will have exploits.
Seriously folks, It's illegal for me to craft a website that exploits the "attack toolkit" to disable the attack.
I'm forbidden from fighting back...
If someone breaks into my house and threatens me with a shotgun, it's perfectly legal for me to use my pistol on them; The same is not true for software. If my machine is infected by a botnet it's illegal for me to exploit the botnet to disable the threat.
Take heed folks:
Without the right to bear arms we have no means to protect ourselves.
Without the right to bear technology we have no means to protect ourselves.
These attack toolkits will continue to work effectively for only as long as it's illegal for folks like me to exploit and disable botnets & attack toolkits.
Also note: If you outlaw strong encryption, only outlaws will have strong encryption.
If we're going to classify strong encryption as a munitions and have government funded "Cyber Warfare" and "Cyber Defense" then I demand a right to Cyber Defend our Cyber Selfs.
What better way to find a use for a Moonstalk, the lunar equivalent of a terrestrial Space Elevator...
Awe damn-it, When I heard Moonstalk I thought it would involve Rockin' out for days on end and wallowing in peace and free-love with the Lunarians -- Like a Lunar Woodstock.
This seems foolish to me. The other planets of the solar system are not good real estate, and there needs to be a clear justification for why humans should colonize space at all. If the justification is profit, then the US federal government doesn't need to fund it with tax money. If the motivation is the Larry Niven quip that "the dinosaurs didn't have a space program," then it's not at all clear that moon-then-Mars is the best way to go, and if we want to find out the best way to go, flying nationalistic propaganda missions for the US is not the best way to do it. The best way to go may be, for example, a space station orbiting Europa. We just don't know right now.
I think it's foolish to think that we will ever find out "the best way" to distribute humanity (to prevent Human extinction) if we never try to experimentally and/or temporarily populate our closest celestial bodies.
If we wait until "the best" procedure is theoretically proposed we still won't know for sure until we try -- Better to try a bit now with what we have in order to advance the science of extra-planetary habitation and accelerate the discovery of the optimal procedure than to only day-dream until we're all extinct.
The journey of a thousand light-years must begin with a single plank length.
There's a whole new planet just waiting to be overexploited and ruined by greedy corporations out there...
That's what the Galactic Overseers said when they found Earth and decided to grow food--er Humans here.
2. on a 28 days for a "full engine cycle" with probably about 1/3 of this duration in a situation where the gradient is not good enough (extremities of your "tube" too close to the day-night terminators) - need hell of a lot of "thermal inertia" to get the most of the "max temperature differential" period)
somehow... I don't think it's gonna work too well.
Wait, Terminators are on the moon? As we speak?!
Hmmm, makes sense -- That's probably a good angle to cast the Sky-Net from...
Seriously though: What about the moon's south pole? It gets sun all the time.
Now all we have to do is Find a deep dark crater on the south pole of the moon.
Is China the Beast of Revelations?
Nope, but they'll get to meet him if they don't deliver my next shipment of Cup-O-Abominations before noon tomorrow.
http://www.kongregate.com/games/Moly/gorillas-bas
My first exposure to source code was BASIC on the Apple II in elementary school -- computer lab.
However, it wasn't until a year later when I got an IBM with MSDOS + QBasic, that I was able spend enough time with source code to discover how to program. The books were all gibberish to me, but learning via modifying GORILLAS.BAS was a satisfying / rewarding experience.
I've seen lots of today's young programmers enlightened by open sourced games (like Doom, Quake, etc.), Perhaps Angry Birds source will be available in time as well.
Build the hardware and sell it at cost or maybe less then create an app store to make more money.
Huh? So, only the "rich" poor people can afford the "cool" apps?
Besides, it already has a free "app store" (AKA activity repository).
openSUSE has packaged about 50 activities in total for Sugar, with more activities available for installation from the sugarlabs.org activities repository. Activities that haven't been packaged can be downloaded directly from http://activities.sugarlabs.org/ and installed by the user through the browse interface (the repository is similar to firefox addons.)
Make an observation, and then come up with a theory to explain it. From observations we know that there is some type of mass out there affecting gravity. We call it 'dark matter' because we don't know what it is. This isn't an aether theory, it's based on real observations.
So, let me get this straight, all empty space is assumed to have the same "density" properties?
When we observe gravity as a warping of space, is it not reasonable to think that the warping of space might cause an effect similar to gravity, without requiring any mass at all?
My question is this: Why do we assume that all "empty space" is uniform?
Could it be that "dark matter" is simply "empty space" that is naturally "curved"?
One theory is that our universe exists on a "(mem)brane". What's to say that the membrane itself is perfectly smooth?
Perhaps it was, but the big bang (or other past universe-scale forces) caused ripples in the fabric of space-time itself.
Perhaps the variations in the space-time fabric density explain why energy/matter began to "clump" together, perhaps it just pooled into the valleys.
TL;DR: Dark matter may actually be nothing at all -- thus explaining: Why we can't observe dark matter; Why normal energy & matter pass right through it; Why the big bang's energy was not uniformly distributed.
http://xkcd.com/729/
http://xkcd.com/713/
I felt obliged to post an XKCD link -- as it is our custom.
... You're our -2,147,483,648th Column in the User Row!
<blink>This is not a Joke!</blink>
Click here to claim your free ERROR [MEMTABLE-FLUSHER-POOL:7] 2010-01-17 08:16:53,628 DebuggableThreadPoolExecutor.java (line 110) Error in ThreadPoolExecutor!
One word: Rootkit.
How can "IT-required OS, the BS apps that monitor your computer, ... the corporate anti-virus, etc." be trusted if to work properly if the underlying system is compromised?
Rootkit infected systems lie to AVs and spoof OS file system APIs -- they can even BS the "BS apps" into showing "all green, I'm still secure, not leaking any data at all."
No matter the encapsulation method you use, if the outer layer is malicious all interior security can be compromised.
The only way to ensure that I can't take home my computer and install a rootkit is to prevent me from booting my own OS i.e. the hardware would have to use treacherous^Wtrusted computing to ensure only cryptographically signed code can run.
In this event, I can no longer do whatever I want to the system -- it is by definition not "[My] Own Computer", as TFA questions. Given that it's not actually MY computer, I will purchase another machine that will let me do whatever I want and this one will be mine.
I will resist spending any of my own money to acquire/upgrade the other locked down machine, and we'll be in the same boat that we are in now -- Newer personal computing devices, and older devices for work (that I am not allowed to keep upon termination of employment).
I love the fact that there is a common desire to preserve our historic technological achievements.
Working reproductions of dying / dead machines are a great learning tool -- We are all truly standing on the shoulders of giants today.
I feel that efforts such as rebuilding the EDSAC are in the same vein as those that would create emulators for our out of production computers and video game systems as a cheap way to preserve the past.
What good is the EDSAC or an Emulator without a sampling of the programs the systems used to run? Surely different people would attribute different degrees of importance to different programs -- Thankfully digital storage is abundant and cheap enough that we are capable of preserving entire catalogs of programs.
Notice however, that the more relevant, beneficial and useful a replica or emulator is, the more illegal it is to produce due to patents and copyrights.
I fear that if the current copyright laws could be enforced absolutely, we stand to loose important parts of our history and culture for no other reason but greed. Given the long terms of copyright, it's a safe assumption that much of our digital heritage could decay and be lost before it's legal to reproduce it -- Even under good conditions CDs, Magnetic and Solid State Drives will all fail before 70 years after the author's life has elapsed.
I'm very wary of DRM and the DMCA -- Today we can recreate past works to better understand the significance of the shoulders on which we stand; Tomorrow we may find ourselves searching for footing that has long since crumbled away.
H.264 is a standard; not a de-facto, or "industry" standard, but one adopted by an international standards body with wide representation. It publishes specs. If you build a part to do something with H.264 video, as long as it conforms to spec, it will work with others' products.
... ?? Your point is? I believe what you're referring to is a documented format. Any such documented audio/video encoding format that conforms to its specification can be read by any video decoder that conforms to the same respective spec.
In fact: Data from any type of encoder conforming to a spec can be read it's corresponding decoder! ( GnuZip reads WinZipped files... )
This means, Theora, VP8, MP4, MP3, and even Windows Media Audio (WMA) and Win Media Audio (WMV) have multiple implementations -- they are all "open standards" in that anyone can create a complying implementation via the format's documentation.
You know, like the way any unlocked GSM phone works on any GSM network that operates on the same frequency band. [H.264 is] ideal for startups, because you only need expertise in your own narrow product field, not in the entire much broader space.
The same can be said for VP8, Windows Media, MP3, Theora, Vorbis, and virtually every existing codec known to man.
The difference is that unlike H.264 "standards boards", VP8 and Theora do not pursue license fees, and claim no patents.
Startups would be more wise to go with a codec that is not patent encumbered, and costs $0.00 to license... Not H.264.
To build say an innovative silicon decoder you don't need to know how to build an encoder, [blah blah blah blah blah blah]
Documented file formats enable multiple or partial implementations of codecs... Self evident really, no need to iterate every type of implementation that can exist or re-repeat yourself, we get it.
And while you occasionally run into interop issues this is positively nothing compared to the alternative of having inhouse expertise for *everything*.
Yes, it's quite foolish to build an inhouse codec, but H.264 isn't the only codec out there.
Hell, you can create a wrapper that allows an interface to external codec libraries in order to support all of the codecs I've mentioned above... However, if you ship a product with a patented encumbered codec, you must pay the licensing fee to MS, MPEG-LA, or other such patent holders.
The license fee for VP8, and Vorbis is $0.00.
Compared to other costs, licensing fees are fairly trivial. $100k doesn't even buy a competent engineer for a year.
Yep, and for absolutely NO FEE you can just use Theora/Vorbis, or VP8. $100k is 10000000% more than $1, and infinity% more than $0.
Fact is, Chrome is a derivative of Chromium -- If Google goes with H.264 then Chormium would have to have H.264 support, or else Google has to maintain a separate video branch in Chrome.
Unfortunately, If I compile Chromium Source Code that has H.264 support I'm forbidden from distributing the binaries unless I pay the licensing fees.
From a web browser "start-up" perspective, it's best for Google NOT to burden the "start-up" with licensing fees or maintaining it's own incompatible video branch if the "start-up" were to fork Chromium.
Thus, Chromium currently has no H.264 support (in favor of VP8 and Theora/Vorbis), and Chrome is simply adopting the same behavior as upstream.
Additionally: I could have just s/ H.264 / WMV / in your post, and made the reductio ad absurdum argument for Microsoft's proprietary format -- but my heart wouldn't be in it.