NEVER underestimate the placebo effect when dealing with audiophiles.
Even if they can never hear the difference, because they THINK 24 bit lossy encoding is better than 16 bit lossy encoding, they will believe it sounds better and therefore you have a chance to charge them more for it.
After all, the audio/video realm is the home of massively overpriced digital cables with gold plated contacts and vastly inflated pricetags, because some suckers think they are better.
Sorry, we already have a counterexample in Stuxnet: a highly enginnered, highly malicious 'cyber-warface' class attack, launched outside of open hostilities with the intended aim of destroying portions of the target's infrastructure.
Stuxnet has now said 'if you don't get caught, its open season'.
HDMI out standard makes TV integration much easier (not all TVs have an audio in jack along with a DVI/HDMI input), and Mac Minis are great under TVs.
The video is vastly VASTLY improved. And you can now actually take the thing apart without going crazy! The reason why Apple has stuck with the Core 2 is that
a) Its a really good processor b) They could get a GOOD all-in-one chipset/video solution. No such solution exists for the i5/i7 line.
And thus the improvements are easily worth the extra $100 price bump.
My desktop at work is a 3+ year old Mac Mini. It will probably be replaced shortly by another Mac Mini...
Basically, take a laptop with an easy to swap hard drive. Swap in a new drive, with a clean image, and no access credentials except to a temporary dropbox account for emergency mail and/or working set.
Now if you are intercepted, there is no data TO capture, and you can remove all but hardware/bios trojans by a wipe and reinstall.
As a bonus, you can just take out the drive, hand it to customs, and let them have fun with it.
"So let's see. Either I am seen naked by a pervert hiding in the booth or suffer a sexual assault.
I'll take the first one, thank you"
-Me, today, at airline security.
To think we are paying ~$5/person in "Security fees" to suffer this shit that doesn't do any good.
And I just hope the TSA personnel have dosimiters: The X-ray dosage per person may be low, but I'd not want to stand next to that thing for a year without wearing a dosimiter..
There are a couple of significant and important limitations in the model:
a) It assumes only two reviews per paper, and that the reviews are pure boolean, and that reviewer types are also pure and reviewers are randomly selected (when two of the classes of reviewers, 'mythantropes' (always reject) and 'altruists' (always accept) are specifically selected against by editors and PC chairs based on reputation).
b) It does not consider the cases (such as conferences) where there is a program committee meeting and the papers are not just considered on their own, but gone through a relative ranking process.
a: Its actually ubiquitous in the LAN these days. Both Apple and Microsoft use IPv6 link local operations very heavily, because it Just Works with nice stateless autoconfiguration and multicast.
b: You can have things screw it up if you don't have V6 deployed, and you have to worry about V6 even if you don't 'have' V6: EG, a Windows box with connection sharing and 6to4 enabled will happily try to "share" the 6to4 connection with everyone else on the LAN, so everyone else gets a V6 address that doesn't actually work. And with Apple prefering a 6to4 IPv6 address over a V4 address, the macs on the same network will now see horrible behavior going to any dual-stacked site, as it will try V6 first, take a timeout, then revert to V4.
c: Address space exhaustion is real, and IPv6 + DS-Lite (or even just IPv6 + IPv4 NAT) allows an ISP to get around address space exhaustion in a much cleaner way than the alternatives.
Where have you been for the past 10 years? Most ISPs (read: Telcos & Cablecos) have long demonstrated their inability to be honest.
Where have I been? In the trenches.
I was one of the researchers behind the web tripwires project for detecting ISP injected advertisements. I was one of the developers of the RST injection detector that was used to monitor how ISPs were disrupting traffic with injected Resets. And I'm one of the developers of Netalyzr.
And overall, most ISPs are actually honest, and even the dishonest ones have gotten a fair bit better.
EG, Comcast was incredibly dishonest at the start on their BitTorrent shaping (denying what they were doing altogether), but in the end were honest about it once they got caught (it did indeed only affect upload-only BitTorrent flows, we were able to independently verify this), and has become much more transparent about their traffic shaping and port filtering policies since then (they even have done IETF drafts on how their traffic management is done today).
And this is why I believe that thing that really makes a difference is being able to validate that what an ISP says is actually true: If ISPs know that manipulations will be detected, they have a much lower incentive to manipulate traffic. This is why I believe in network transparency.
You notice how you don't have ISPs talking about doing advertisement injection. Why? because its detectable. You notice how most ISPs no longer mess with BitTorrent? Why: because its detectable.
This is the biggest benefit of transparency and enforcing transparency by measuring for violations: it keeps honest ISPs honest, and punishes the dishonest when (not if, but when) you catch them.
What is needed is network transparency, not necessarily network neutrality.
EG, under some definitions of network neutrality, various useful traffic shaping (such as placing heavy users in a different QOS tier when compared with light users, implementing per-user fairness, or doing Remote Active Queue Management to mitigate the effect of overbuffered access devices), would not be allowed.
Yet such shaping would generally benefit all users: it prevents heavy users from impacting light users (in the first two cases) and even reduces heavy users self-inflicted damage (in the latter case). But the same devices which could implement such beneficial shaping could also perform amazingly anticompetitive traffic manipulation, such as disrupting a user's VoIP calls.
Thus what we need is network transparency: ISPs must disclose what their policies are: how they shape and manipulate traffic in ways that may benefit or may damage users. And we need active verification of such policies, because although most ISPs will be honest, some won't be.
This is the entire Akamai business model: It saves money for BOTH google AND Verizon, and improves latency for Google.
And unless the user is actually transferring data at full line rate (saturating buffers), does not penalize anyone else. (During full rate transfers, TCP dynamics cause short RTT flows to be favored).
With a voice call at ~8 kbps, 140 MB is equivelent to 40 hours of talking on the phone a month. Smartphone data is pretty darn significant in the phone company world.
I actually have an R4RS that I bought a couple years back for homebrew development/hacking (but, in the end, the wifi wasn't good enough), but to be perfectly honest, the market for these really is 99%+ for piracy.
Its not that they don't care about noninfringing usage, the court just realized that the noninfringing usage is almost irrelevantly small.
I can easily believe that they could get the bill of materials cost down to $35, but...
That doesn't mean it costs $35: manufacturing adds a lot. The cheapest mobile phone (which has roughly the same part cost except the screen is VASTLY cheaper) is still $50 unsubsidized.
The reason the alcohol content is so high is not that its brewed, but that its freeze-distilled: by freezing the water out (the alcohol has a lower freezing point).
So calling it beer is really BS: its really a freeze-distilled whiskey.
The problem is the antennas being shorted by a slightly conductive (sweaty) finger bridging one or more of the three breaks.
Apple doesn't need a recall to fix the problem: future phones can have a coating, and a free bumper ($10 cost to Apple) to existing customers solves all the problems.
At 2M iPhones, the "recall fix" would be a whopping $20M.
A high-cube container is 9' 6" tall, which gives about 9' internal vertical space to work with, which means that even with 6" in the floor and 6" in the ceiling for insulation, electrical, plumbing, etc, you have an 8' vertical space.
Normal containers are a foot shorter, which means it will feel more claustorphobic, and train carrages are even shorter.
The biggest challenge is the width, with only less than 8 feet of width, you pretty much HAVE to mate containers side by side and remove the interior walls to get nice space.
Slashdot Mirror
NEVER underestimate the placebo effect when dealing with audiophiles.
Even if they can never hear the difference, because they THINK 24 bit lossy encoding is better than 16 bit lossy encoding, they will believe it sounds better and therefore you have a chance to charge them more for it.
After all, the audio/video realm is the home of massively overpriced digital cables with gold plated contacts and vastly inflated pricetags, because some suckers think they are better.
Sorry, we already have a counterexample in Stuxnet: a highly enginnered, highly malicious 'cyber-warface' class attack, launched outside of open hostilities with the intended aim of destroying portions of the target's infrastructure.
Stuxnet has now said 'if you don't get caught, its open season'.
Not quite:
HDMI out standard makes TV integration much easier (not all TVs have an audio in jack along with a DVI/HDMI input), and Mac Minis are great under TVs.
The video is vastly VASTLY improved. And you can now actually take the thing apart without going crazy! The reason why Apple has stuck with the Core 2 is that
a) Its a really good processor
b) They could get a GOOD all-in-one chipset/video solution. No such solution exists for the i5/i7 line.
And thus the improvements are easily worth the extra $100 price bump.
My desktop at work is a 3+ year old Mac Mini. It will probably be replaced shortly by another Mac Mini...
This has been tried, several times. With the same problems popping up again and again.
Such as "The DNS is a hierarchical namespace, P2P type controls work only for flat namespaces. Yet generally people like hierarchical namespaces."
and "Without a good notion of cryptographic trust, you're doomed in a P2P setting. And if you think a PKI is hard to get right...".
I worked through this policy myself as an intellectual exercise (A protocol for China. Or Defcon. Take your pick).
Basically, take a laptop with an easy to swap hard drive. Swap in a new drive, with a clean image, and no access credentials except to a temporary dropbox account for emergency mail and/or working set.
Now if you are intercepted, there is no data TO capture, and you can remove all but hardware/bios trojans by a wipe and reinstall.
As a bonus, you can just take out the drive, hand it to customs, and let them have fun with it.
"So let's see. Either I am seen naked by a pervert hiding in the booth or suffer a sexual assault.
I'll take the first one, thank you"
-Me, today, at airline security.
To think we are paying ~$5/person in "Security fees" to suffer this shit that doesn't do any good.
And I just hope the TSA personnel have dosimiters: The X-ray dosage per person may be low, but I'd not want to stand next to that thing for a year without wearing a dosimiter..
Its A Trap!
-Ackbar
There are a couple of significant and important limitations in the model:
a) It assumes only two reviews per paper, and that the reviews are pure boolean, and that reviewer types are also pure and reviewers are randomly selected (when two of the classes of reviewers, 'mythantropes' (always reject) and 'altruists' (always accept) are specifically selected against by editors and PC chairs based on reputation).
b) It does not consider the cases (such as conferences) where there is a program committee meeting and the papers are not just considered on their own, but gone through a relative ranking process.
For three big reasons.
a: Its actually ubiquitous in the LAN these days. Both Apple and Microsoft use IPv6 link local operations very heavily, because it Just Works with nice stateless autoconfiguration and multicast.
b: You can have things screw it up if you don't have V6 deployed, and you have to worry about V6 even if you don't 'have' V6: EG, a Windows box with connection sharing and 6to4 enabled will happily try to "share" the 6to4 connection with everyone else on the LAN, so everyone else gets a V6 address that doesn't actually work. And with Apple prefering a 6to4 IPv6 address over a V4 address, the macs on the same network will now see horrible behavior going to any dual-stacked site, as it will try V6 first, take a timeout, then revert to V4.
c: Address space exhaustion is real, and IPv6 + DS-Lite (or even just IPv6 + IPv4 NAT) allows an ISP to get around address space exhaustion in a much cleaner way than the alternatives.
If it can't be detected at all, how shady can it really be?
THats not ad-injection, thats NXDOMAIN wildcarding.
ANd its obnoxious, we measure for it, and have charted the rise of it. It stinks but at least Comcast has a good opt out (others don't)
Where have you been for the past 10 years? Most ISPs (read: Telcos & Cablecos) have long demonstrated their inability to be honest.
Where have I been? In the trenches.
I was one of the researchers behind the web tripwires project for detecting ISP injected advertisements. I was one of the developers of the RST injection detector that was used to monitor how ISPs were disrupting traffic with injected Resets. And I'm one of the developers of Netalyzr.
And overall, most ISPs are actually honest, and even the dishonest ones have gotten a fair bit better.
EG, Comcast was incredibly dishonest at the start on their BitTorrent shaping (denying what they were doing altogether), but in the end were honest about it once they got caught (it did indeed only affect upload-only BitTorrent flows, we were able to independently verify this), and has become much more transparent about their traffic shaping and port filtering policies since then (they even have done IETF drafts on how their traffic management is done today).
And this is why I believe that thing that really makes a difference is being able to validate that what an ISP says is actually true: If ISPs know that manipulations will be detected, they have a much lower incentive to manipulate traffic. This is why I believe in network transparency.
You notice how you don't have ISPs talking about doing advertisement injection. Why? because its detectable. You notice how most ISPs no longer mess with BitTorrent? Why: because its detectable.
This is the biggest benefit of transparency and enforcing transparency by measuring for violations: it keeps honest ISPs honest, and punishes the dishonest when (not if, but when) you catch them.
What is needed is network transparency, not necessarily network neutrality.
EG, under some definitions of network neutrality, various useful traffic shaping (such as placing heavy users in a different QOS tier when compared with light users, implementing per-user fairness, or doing Remote Active Queue Management to mitigate the effect of overbuffered access devices), would not be allowed.
Yet such shaping would generally benefit all users: it prevents heavy users from impacting light users (in the first two cases) and even reduces heavy users self-inflicted damage (in the latter case). But the same devices which could implement such beneficial shaping could also perform amazingly anticompetitive traffic manipulation, such as disrupting a user's VoIP calls.
Thus what we need is network transparency: ISPs must disclose what their policies are: how they shape and manipulate traffic in ways that may benefit or may damage users. And we need active verification of such policies, because although most ISPs will be honest, some won't be.
This is the entire Akamai business model: It saves money for BOTH google AND Verizon, and improves latency for Google.
And unless the user is actually transferring data at full line rate (saturating buffers), does not penalize anyone else. (During full rate transfers, TCP dynamics cause short RTT flows to be favored).
With a voice call at ~8 kbps, 140 MB is equivelent to 40 hours of talking on the phone a month. Smartphone data is pretty darn significant in the phone company world.
People deny evolution. People deny global warming...
People are incredibly good at denying that reality exists, especially when its reality they don't want to comprehend.
I actually have an R4RS that I bought a couple years back for homebrew development/hacking (but, in the end, the wifi wasn't good enough), but to be perfectly honest, the market for these really is 99%+ for piracy.
Its not that they don't care about noninfringing usage, the court just realized that the noninfringing usage is almost irrelevantly small.
I can easily believe that they could get the bill of materials cost down to $35, but...
That doesn't mean it costs $35: manufacturing adds a lot. The cheapest mobile phone (which has roughly the same part cost except the screen is VASTLY cheaper) is still $50 unsubsidized.
The reason the alcohol content is so high is not that its brewed, but that its freeze-distilled: by freezing the water out (the alcohol has a lower freezing point).
So calling it beer is really BS: its really a freeze-distilled whiskey.
After all, in 2001, they had Bush's inaugural address as "Our Long National Nightmare of Peace and Prosperity is Over"...
The problem is the antennas being shorted by a slightly conductive (sweaty) finger bridging one or more of the three breaks.
Apple doesn't need a recall to fix the problem: future phones can have a coating, and a free bumper ($10 cost to Apple) to existing customers solves all the problems.
At 2M iPhones, the "recall fix" would be a whopping $20M.
After all, we know that the truth has a liberal bias.
I notice there wasn't anything on the site saying/acknowledging the copyrights/trademarks of the original Ultima...
Queue up the DMCA takedown notice, and the inevitable "oh, the evil DMCA takedown notice" slashdot article...
Actually, its more subtle, it removes the FEAR of cats, and in fact makes male rats horney around the scent of cat urine!
A high-cube container is 9' 6" tall, which gives about 9' internal vertical space to work with, which means that even with 6" in the floor and 6" in the ceiling for insulation, electrical, plumbing, etc, you have an 8' vertical space.
Normal containers are a foot shorter, which means it will feel more claustorphobic, and train carrages are even shorter.
The biggest challenge is the width, with only less than 8 feet of width, you pretty much HAVE to mate containers side by side and remove the interior walls to get nice space.