Then why not let the market decide? I'm happy with either format, it is up to the content providers to decide what is best for them, if they choose to use flash I don't like it, but such is life. Why is Google trying to put their finger on the scales? I like chrome, it's got a nice debugging environment and the built in translation and individual process per tab are really nice, but I want to have more choices, not less. I don't think it should be the position of browser manufacturers to dictate what kind of media should be produced. But my feeling is that they over reached. It's a big fuck you to the content providers who turned their back on GoogleTV I think.
I had the same experience with a iPhone 3G (not 3GS) after upgrading to OS 3.0 Some stuck process drained my battery to zero in a very short period of time. I wasn't near my charger, and initially I thought that the unit had died. I've never drained the battery before, and trying to power it up in that state didn't give a response of any kind. Once I got home I was relieved when it woke up after docking it.
This is an OS issue I think, not the battery. The side effect is heat and reduced life though. I'd imagine that the thermal monitoring isn't able to shutdown the unit when it gets into that state. I wasn't handling my unit at the time so I don't know if there was heat related to the event.
I'll leave it to others to attack the flawed methodology (although I can't resist pointing out that using a Javascript/DOM compatibility inspector as a test is seriously dumb. The thing is designed to short circuit on a matched API call, the order is going to have inherent bias by design!) My question is if you are willing to include Beta's why not include Webkit (and even IE8 just to be fair.) You could have painted a much more balanced picture...
But at east he did all the tests on the same day, we all know that network latency doesn't vary in less than 24 hour periods of time.
Also it seems as though NetApp was rather nice about this whole patent thing from the get go. It wasn't until Sun threatened them that they acted and again acted fairly preferring a cross licensing deal rather than any cash payout in either direction.
It's a nice story, but Sun is claiming the exact opposite actually happened, with NetApp trying to extort them over ZFS first. On a purely intuitive basis I'd say that sounds more reasonable, NetApp has much more to fear from ZFS than Sun had to gain by trying to extort some licensing fees.
Well if they would simply allow us to rate the article's themselves, we could troll rate the whole thing off the front page. Slashdot needs to give us a better way to provide instant corrective measures to our clueless editorial overlords. I'm sure after getting their submissions buried a couple times they might be a bit more discerning.
How long before one of these clever corporations develops plants resistant to a specific disease, then a super virulent strain of that disease? Gee China, looks like your rice crop was wiped out. Good thing we have this disease resistant variety to sell you...
The other day when I went to my local Safeway supermarket, I selected a plastic hand-basket and noticed something odd. It had a small black box, about 1" X 1/2" X 1/4" sloppily zip tied to the underside of the basket. I flipped the basket over, and read some company logo along the lines of ShopTracker or some such thing. I was pretty irked, so I tossed it behind the stack of baskets and selected an unencumbered model. They want to know where you visit, and where you linger. No warning on the basket at all...
Carbon fiber nanotubes are pretty conductive IIRC. I don't know why they can't use the cable to provide power as well, since we are talking about the near impossible anyway. All you need to do is insure that you keep at least two isolated contiguous conductive paths. This isn't as crazy as it sounds since a composite is typically composed of fibers in a nonconductive epoxy. You just need to weave really carefully. Alternatively, the cable could be used as a big antenna sending radiowaves that could be converted into power via induction. (Is that right?) Also the mules only need to go up, you can drop them back down via atmospheric reentry.
My 1000 employee silicon valley company is taking the whole crew to opening day. They reserved a theatre and two showings in the afternoon. I guess the bubble still exists for some of the luck few.
Damn, too bad you AC'ed because I'm interested to see how the 1.5 software does with this box. I'll D/L it for my EyeTV USB and see how it is myself. I'm sure someone will make a nice drag and drop transcoder (come on fourty-two) that will make down sampling this easier. The H.234 codec should be interesting too.
A) This is a HDTV recorder, it does do *digital* SD, but all of the streams are simply dumped in RAW MPEG2 off of the decoder chip. There is no onboard transcoder chip that could re-encode that stream to DV on the fly, and it would be useless to downsample all the HDTV resolution streams to DV as it wouldn't be HD anymore.
B) Transcoding RAW MPEG2 to DV in software is way slower than realtime, and would actually INCREASE the amount of space required to store the information by a lot.
C) The RAW MPEG2 stream can conceivably be dumped directly to DVHS, or piped to the FireWire port on an HDTV (Mitsubishi, Sony, etc...) Try doing that with DV.
If you want to use iMovie, no one is stopping you. You can transcode it yourself. In order to record in DV you would have to give up the ability to watch TV in realtime, or they would have to invest in a onboard chip to do the transcoding (think thousands of dollars per box.) So that's why.
By the way, there are FireWire *standard* definition Tuner units for the Mac that record in Native DV, but again this is HD.
It just dumps a native HDTV MPEG2 stream to disk. It is not QuickTime. I don't doubt that someone will make a transcoder that will be able to re-compress these streams since the format is standard and there is obviously a need. The new H.264 codec is not part of QuickTime yet though, so don't hold your breath.
ElGato just released version 1.5 today that lowers CPU requirements for HDTV playback. I read reports of dual 866 G4 being able to play back a full 1080i stream.
The review was vague about being able to receive standard VHF and UHF over the air broadcasts. The online documentation also doesn't specifically indicate that it can receive them. And no Cable input? I mean come on, how is that useful. All the PCI based solutions provide dual antenna inputs. I could understand the lack of Cable based HDTV, but it should at least allow you to record and play standard def cable.
Well this was supposedly his 'personal' project that he was working on during the time Google allocates to their engineers. The fact that it was all written using MS stuff and asp surprised me when I first started using it. I think that Google shouldn't be blamed, but Orkut may have some 'splaining to do...
Yes but having a checksum that could verify the the vote was registered and could be verified by the government if there was a need wouldn't be bad.
For example:
1) I vote and visually verify that everything looks correct. 2) I receive a receipt with a UID and hash (checksum) of my vote 3) I can confirm after the election via the UID that they received my vote (via the net of course.) 4) If I think there was some hanky-panky I can send the hash to a vote auditor who confirms the state records match my vote.
Why would rsyncing a giant monolithic file be a better solution? rsync will only have to deal with the changes (new mail) which is the whole point of Maildirs...
The bigger question is how taking a compressed format (MPEG2) compressing it further (Indeo) and using that as a source is a good test. Each different type of video compression create artifacts that are unique to that algorithm. When you re-encode with a different codec you can have distortion that is amplified by the *beating* of the algorithms. Different codec's will react in different ways to source that has a specific kind of distortion.
To make a comparison of codec's based on an MPEG2 compressed source is justifiable from the standpoint that we are likely to be ripping DVD's. However, I very much doubt that we will rip down to an interstitial Indeo format before doing the final compression. The fact that they didn't separate the compression time test's from the compression quality tests is suspect. They say they didn't want to contaminate the test with disk access, but disk access times would have been the same for all of the codecs and would have modeled real user usage.
I would not be surprised that SV3 and MPEG-4 have a bad interaction with Indeo compression, or at least Indeo compressed MPEG2. They should have used the original MPEG2 source at a minimum, and ideally uncompressed source.
But that's not what this software does. He has another program that pulls the unencrypted AAC file out of a Windows PC's memory, and dumps it raw to a headerless (not directly playbackable) file. But that is real cicumvention, and would be unlikely to be integrated into any software that had DMCA exposure. It is important to note that the actual encryption used by Apple has not yet publicly been compromised.
Not that I would advocate such use. But this requires the key to be distributed with each file. Keep in mind that said key is *known* by apple, and directly tied to your account, it isn't something I would recommend sending out into the wild. On the other hand, using it on your own equipment to get around that creepy three machine registration limit seems like a good thing. If anything ever happened to Apple and your registered machine bit the dust, being able to back up a valid copy of your key seems like a good thing.
The thing is that AFAIK VLC isn't set up to manage multiple key+file pairs. So it is useful for *your* library, but not various files downloaded off the net. For that reason, I doubt they will go after him.
My question is, how does the iPod decrypt the file without a key? Or is it simply using the parent boxes key? It seems to me that if that's the case it should be trivial to recover the key from an iPod directly, no PC required (Just a Mac:-)
Tab support is kind of cobbeled
on
Safari 1.0 Released
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
The problem is that unlike Mozilla based browsers the tabs don't support drag and drop URL's so you aren't able to reuse them. I like to drag links to existing tabs to update them with new information, or drag a URL to the empty tab area to create a new tab.
You can drag links between windows, why not between tabs? At least make the tabs 'spring loaded' or something.
Okay, I agree that it is unlikely that they refurbish the parts unless it is a known single point of failure (the firewire interface chip problem was an exception since it was easy to test for and repair) and there is a high failure rate that would require a larger percentage of replacement parts than was originally manufactured.
My automotive analogy was imperfect, but my point was that to create a new production run of motherboards or handwork defective returns is extremely cost prohibitive.
Think about what would be involved in manufacturing new motherboards after original production is finished.
First you have to identify a facility, most of Apples manufacturing is contracted out. This would have to be bid out, and would most likely involve reducing capacity of current production (profitable) hardware.
Second, all tooling would need to be transferred to that facility.
Third, all the components would have to be purchased. Some of which are going to be old and out of production. Some may no longer be available, and that would require replacements that are untested and may require redesign.
Four, the boards need to go through quality assurance testing, again subcontracted and requiring specialized tooling and equipment.
This process is almost completely untenable and would incur ridiculous costs. It would be cheaper to just give people new machines as in the infamous 5000 series powerbooks. Doing this is extremely unprofitable for Apple. It is easy for someone to complain about a $600 motherboard, but the costs to actually manufacture it after production has ceased could easily be twice that.
The requirement of an exchange board defiantly would eliminate the abuse of the warrantee parts program, but I agree that in most cases those defective boards are shit canned.
So I feel there is a lot of thought and science put into manufacturing enough replacement parts during a manufacturing run. They analyze failure rates, types of failure and overall quantities while simultaneously integrating fixes and revisions to improve reliability. It doesn't take much to destabilize a formula, and incur tremendous expenses.
Apple should not be blamed for doing what they did.
Re:Spare parts
on
iBox Episode 2
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Nope, unfortunately you are wrong. The replacement parts are manufactured during the production run. Only under extraordinary circumstances would a part as complex as a motherboard be put into another production run, and then only at incredible cost. Based on the failure rate over the production run a percentage of replacement parts are manufactured and that's it.
If a large portion of these parts are consumed for non-failure situations, Apple will have to incur the cost of reestablishing production, or replacing the entire product with a suitable replacement (new hardware.)
As an owner of Apple hardware, I support their enforcement of contractual obligations to ensure that my purchases can be serviced and maintained for as long as is reasonable.
Wouldn't you be pissed off if your cars motor failed and you were told that no replacements were available because all the spares were bought up by people using them in other vehicles?
You feel that Apple should incur the sizable costs to do another production run of parts to support someone who is misappropriating their hardware for their own profit!
The stupid thing is you can get the Apple versions of this 'older' hardware on eBay for around the same price if not cheaper! This whole idea is lame.
Slashdot Mirror
Then why not let the market decide? I'm happy with either format, it is up to the content providers to decide what is best for them, if they choose to use flash I don't like it, but such is life. Why is Google trying to put their finger on the scales? I like chrome, it's got a nice debugging environment and the built in translation and individual process per tab are really nice, but I want to have more choices, not less. I don't think it should be the position of browser manufacturers to dictate what kind of media should be produced. But my feeling is that they over reached. It's a big fuck you to the content providers who turned their back on GoogleTV I think.
Seriously, he has the most redundant, dupe, non-interesteing, so five weeks ago postings of all the editors here. What a waste of space.
I had the same experience with a iPhone 3G (not 3GS) after upgrading to OS 3.0 Some stuck process drained my battery to zero in a very short period of time. I wasn't near my charger, and initially I thought that the unit had died. I've never drained the battery before, and trying to power it up in that state didn't give a response of any kind. Once I got home I was relieved when it woke up after docking it.
This is an OS issue I think, not the battery. The side effect is heat and reduced life though. I'd imagine that the thermal monitoring isn't able to shutdown the unit when it gets into that state. I wasn't handling my unit at the time so I don't know if there was heat related to the event.
I'll leave it to others to attack the flawed methodology (although I can't resist pointing out that using a Javascript/DOM compatibility inspector as a test is seriously dumb. The thing is designed to short circuit on a matched API call, the order is going to have inherent bias by design!) My question is if you are willing to include Beta's why not include Webkit (and even IE8 just to be fair.) You could have painted a much more balanced picture...
But at east he did all the tests on the same day, we all know that network latency doesn't vary in less than 24 hour periods of time.
It's a nice story, but Sun is claiming the exact opposite actually happened, with NetApp trying to extort them over ZFS first. On a purely intuitive basis I'd say that sounds more reasonable, NetApp has much more to fear from ZFS than Sun had to gain by trying to extort some licensing fees.
Well if they would simply allow us to rate the article's themselves, we could troll rate the whole thing off the front page. Slashdot needs to give us a better way to provide instant corrective measures to our clueless editorial overlords. I'm sure after getting their submissions buried a couple times they might be a bit more discerning.
(Yeah, I must be new here...)
How long before one of these clever corporations develops plants resistant to a specific disease, then a super virulent strain of that disease? Gee China, looks like your rice crop was wiped out. Good thing we have this disease resistant variety to sell you...
The other day when I went to my local Safeway supermarket, I selected a plastic hand-basket and noticed something odd. It had a small black box, about 1" X 1/2" X 1/4" sloppily zip tied to the underside of the basket. I flipped the basket over, and read some company logo along the lines of ShopTracker or some such thing. I was pretty irked, so I tossed it behind the stack of baskets and selected an unencumbered model. They want to know where you visit, and where you linger. No warning on the basket at all...
Carbon fiber nanotubes are pretty conductive IIRC. I don't know why they can't use the cable to provide power as well, since we are talking about the near impossible anyway. All you need to do is insure that you keep at least two isolated contiguous conductive paths. This isn't as crazy as it sounds since a composite is typically composed of fibers in a nonconductive epoxy. You just need to weave really carefully. Alternatively, the cable could be used as a big antenna sending radiowaves that could be converted into power via induction. (Is that right?) Also the mules only need to go up, you can drop them back down via atmospheric reentry.
My 1000 employee silicon valley company is taking the whole crew to opening day. They reserved a theatre and two showings in the afternoon. I guess the bubble still exists for some of the luck few.
Damn, too bad you AC'ed because I'm interested to see how the 1.5 software does with this box. I'll D/L it for my EyeTV USB and see how it is myself. I'm sure someone will make a nice drag and drop transcoder (come on fourty-two) that will make down sampling this easier. The H.234 codec should be interesting too.
That's what I thought. This is an issue obviously as you would need an EyeTV 200 and EyeTV 500 to have a decent system, sigh.
Because:
A) This is a HDTV recorder, it does do *digital* SD, but all of the streams are simply dumped in RAW MPEG2 off of the decoder chip. There is no onboard transcoder chip that could re-encode that stream to DV on the fly, and it would be useless to downsample all the HDTV resolution streams to DV as it wouldn't be HD anymore.
B) Transcoding RAW MPEG2 to DV in software is way slower than realtime, and would actually INCREASE the amount of space required to store the information by a lot.
C) The RAW MPEG2 stream can conceivably be dumped directly to DVHS, or piped to the FireWire port on an HDTV (Mitsubishi, Sony, etc...) Try doing that with DV.
If you want to use iMovie, no one is stopping you. You can transcode it yourself. In order to record in DV you would have to give up the ability to watch TV in realtime, or they would have to invest in a onboard chip to do the transcoding (think thousands of dollars per box.) So that's why.
By the way, there are FireWire *standard* definition Tuner units for the Mac that record in Native DV, but again this is HD.
It just dumps a native HDTV MPEG2 stream to disk. It is not QuickTime. I don't doubt that someone will make a transcoder that will be able to re-compress these streams since the format is standard and there is obviously a need. The new H.264 codec is not part of QuickTime yet though, so don't hold your breath.
ElGato just released version 1.5 today that lowers CPU requirements for HDTV playback. I read reports of dual 866 G4 being able to play back a full 1080i stream.
The review was vague about being able to receive standard VHF and UHF over the air broadcasts. The online documentation also doesn't specifically indicate that it can receive them. And no Cable input? I mean come on, how is that useful. All the PCI based solutions provide dual antenna inputs. I could understand the lack of Cable based HDTV, but it should at least allow you to record and play standard def cable.
Well this was supposedly his 'personal' project that he was working on during the time Google allocates to their engineers. The fact that it was all written using MS stuff and asp surprised me when I first started using it. I think that Google shouldn't be blamed, but Orkut may have some 'splaining to do...
Yes but having a checksum that could verify the the vote was registered and could be verified by the government if there was a need wouldn't be bad.
For example:
1) I vote and visually verify that everything looks correct.
2) I receive a receipt with a UID and hash (checksum) of my vote
3) I can confirm after the election via the UID that they received my vote (via the net of course.)
4) If I think there was some hanky-panky I can send the hash to a vote auditor who confirms the state records match my vote.
Just a thought.
Why would rsyncing a giant monolithic file be a better solution? rsync will only have to deal with the changes (new mail) which is the whole point of Maildirs...
The bigger question is how taking a compressed format (MPEG2) compressing it further (Indeo) and using that as a source is a good test. Each different type of video compression create artifacts that are unique to that algorithm. When you re-encode with a different codec you can have distortion that is amplified by the *beating* of the algorithms. Different codec's will react in different ways to source that has a specific kind of distortion.
To make a comparison of codec's based on an MPEG2 compressed source is justifiable from the standpoint that we are likely to be ripping DVD's. However, I very much doubt that we will rip down to an interstitial Indeo format before doing the final compression. The fact that they didn't separate the compression time test's from the compression quality tests is suspect. They say they didn't want to contaminate the test with disk access, but disk access times would have been the same for all of the codecs and would have modeled real user usage.
I would not be surprised that SV3 and MPEG-4 have a bad interaction with Indeo compression, or at least Indeo compressed MPEG2. They should have used the original MPEG2 source at a minimum, and ideally uncompressed source.
But that's not what this software does. He has another program that pulls the unencrypted AAC file out of a Windows PC's memory, and dumps it raw to a headerless (not directly playbackable) file. But that is real cicumvention, and would be unlikely to be integrated into any software that had DMCA exposure. It is important to note that the actual encryption used by Apple has not yet publicly been compromised.
Not that I would advocate such use. But this requires the key to be distributed with each file. Keep in mind that said key is *known* by apple, and directly tied to your account, it isn't something I would recommend sending out into the wild. On the other hand, using it on your own equipment to get around that creepy three machine registration limit seems like a good thing. If anything ever happened to Apple and your registered machine bit the dust, being able to back up a valid copy of your key seems like a good thing.
:-)
The thing is that AFAIK VLC isn't set up to manage multiple key+file pairs. So it is useful for *your* library, but not various files downloaded off the net. For that reason, I doubt they will go after him.
My question is, how does the iPod decrypt the file without a key? Or is it simply using the parent boxes key? It seems to me that if that's the case it should be trivial to recover the key from an iPod directly, no PC required (Just a Mac
The problem is that unlike Mozilla based browsers the tabs don't support drag and drop URL's so you aren't able to reuse them. I like to drag links to existing tabs to update them with new information, or drag a URL to the empty tab area to create a new tab.
You can drag links between windows, why not between tabs? At least make the tabs 'spring loaded' or something.
Anyway, otherwise it is a great little browser.
And what sort of "leak" has 'censored' material...
A developer who didn't want Apple to see who had leaked the screen shots by having images of his unreleased app all over the place?
Who needs a clue now?
Okay, I agree that it is unlikely that they refurbish the parts unless it is a known single point of failure (the firewire interface chip problem was an exception since it was easy to test for and repair) and there is a high failure rate that would require a larger percentage of replacement parts than was originally manufactured.
My automotive analogy was imperfect, but my point was that to create a new production run of motherboards or handwork defective returns is extremely cost prohibitive.
Think about what would be involved in manufacturing new motherboards after original production is finished.
First you have to identify a facility, most of Apples manufacturing is contracted out. This would have to be bid out, and would most likely involve reducing capacity of current production (profitable) hardware.
Second, all tooling would need to be transferred to that facility.
Third, all the components would have to be purchased. Some of which are going to be old and out of production. Some may no longer be available, and that would require replacements that are untested and may require redesign.
Four, the boards need to go through quality assurance testing, again subcontracted and requiring specialized tooling and equipment.
This process is almost completely untenable and would incur ridiculous costs. It would be cheaper to just give people new machines as in the infamous 5000 series powerbooks. Doing this is extremely unprofitable for Apple. It is easy for someone to complain about a $600 motherboard, but the costs to actually manufacture it after production has ceased could easily be twice that.
The requirement of an exchange board defiantly would eliminate the abuse of the warrantee parts program, but I agree that in most cases those defective boards are shit canned.
So I feel there is a lot of thought and science put into manufacturing enough replacement parts during a manufacturing run. They analyze failure rates, types of failure and overall quantities while simultaneously integrating fixes and revisions to improve reliability. It doesn't take much to destabilize a formula, and incur tremendous expenses.
Apple should not be blamed for doing what they did.
Nope, unfortunately you are wrong. The replacement parts are manufactured during the production run. Only under extraordinary circumstances would a part as complex as a motherboard be put into another production run, and then only at incredible cost. Based on the failure rate over the production run a percentage of replacement parts are manufactured and that's it.
If a large portion of these parts are consumed for non-failure situations, Apple will have to incur the cost of reestablishing production, or replacing the entire product with a suitable replacement (new hardware.)
As an owner of Apple hardware, I support their enforcement of contractual obligations to ensure that my purchases can be serviced and maintained for as long as is reasonable.
Wouldn't you be pissed off if your cars motor failed and you were told that no replacements were available because all the spares were bought up by people using them in other vehicles?
You feel that Apple should incur the sizable costs to do another production run of parts to support someone who is misappropriating their hardware for their own profit!
The stupid thing is you can get the Apple versions of this 'older' hardware on eBay for around the same price if not cheaper! This whole idea is lame.