we already have HDMI. It supports digital video transfer, has loads of bandwidth and even supports the transport of audio along the same cable. It supports HDCP and it is the standard for High Definition TV. my TV has 2 HDMI ports already.
I know HDMI has a couple of issues, it currently doesn't hass 6 channel high definition audio along the cable, ie SACD and DVDA, but I believe that's due with v1.2 or 1.3, it's on the schedule anyway. The other issue I think is that it only supports video resolutions, ie 720p and 1080i/p. but I'm sure this could be easily revised in the next version to support other resolutions too.
make sure it has backwards compatibility and what's the problem? why do we need yet another connector when we have, and are already using a good one.
hmm.. can't find it anymore. might have been a different doc, not 181. it's been a few years since I did RIPE work but I'm sure I saw something about simple admin one-off charges being okay, but that IP addresses were effectively leased and thus should not be regularly charged for.
maybe when I've got some spare time I'll try and look for it again:)
so basically when roaming, all your connectivity goes via your own home? the problem is, that sucks. you're on holiday in states and your connection to load up anything has to go home and then out? using up your home bandwidth cap maybe? surely a better option would be for you to negotiate a connection with your HA and sort out a home address, and then initiate connections from your remote address but with a header of "if you lose me, send packets to my HA", then if you change IP, you renegotiate with your HA (who remembers your keys etc so he knows who you are). Your HA now knows where you've moved to, forwards any packets it has stored and you, the HA and the website re-negotiate your connections to your new address (without dropping them).
that way, you get the latency and bandwidth advantage of your current location while still able to roam. less requirements on your home dsl (ipv6/mobile ip capable) router and bandwidth.
does that make sense or am I missing something here?
I'm still sure that's not allowed in europe at least, by RIPE-181. An admin charge can be applied, which I would see as a one off, but I don't see how they can justify a recurring charge for IP addresses, esp as they don't cost anything.
of course, I only thought to ask RIPE itself after I stopped being a RIPE admin, hence they don't feel the need to answer my questions anymore:)
I remember reading a while ago that NAT actually turned out to be better than IPv6 by virtue of it "solving" the limited number of addresses problem and simultaneously providing a defence against simple hacking attempts by hiding your real IP address.
well, it's not "better" as such, just a different solution. NAT is not a golden bullet though. Yes, it does, by and large prevent random machines on the internet directly contacting your unpatched windows desktop at home, but a firewall will do that too, and virtually every dsl router has a firewall these days too. I would like to see home dsl routers supporting native ipv6 but I don't know of any.
I think that ipv6 is a good thing to go for, but it's not finished (but then, is ipv4?:). there's lots of advertised features for ipv6 (mandatory encryption, mobile ip etc) that are good on paper, but aren't all that in the real world.
Mandatory support for ipsec is great.. except how many of us would use it? as there is currently no support for mndatory ipsec encryption to unknown strangers. you've got to be pre-configured for crypto. I'd like to see something like ssh. if you know the key then great, if you don't then you can accept and save one and then while you may not have verified the destination, you're at least protected on the wire. yes, they also need to sort out authentication and perhaps some form of certificate distribution, but lets make a start on something useable.
mobile IP. sounds great! I can be using my ipv6 pda via my mobile phone and as I walk into my house, it picks up my wireless net and my downloads speed up instantly, all the while not dropping the voip call I'm making. or I'm using a laptop on the train and as it flits from hotspot to hotspot I don't lose any of my connections. sounds great! how does it work? you tell me, details are not easy to find. ots of talk, few working implementations (if I'm wrong, please tell me, I'm genuinely very interested).
working with networks as part of my job, I know how useful and really annoying NAT can be, and I really think it should be an option, not a requirement. I'd love to see ipv6 rolled out and see what changes it brings, but I also think it needs a fair amount of work still.
Actually, it's never been tied to how you use it. Any household containing a device *capable* of receiving TV - including PCs with a TV tuner card - is subject to the license.
not quite true. if you use a TV tuner card to watch tv, then yes, you need a licence, but the Licence is, or certainly was at the start of last year, only for the use of a TV to watch broadcasts. not purely for the ownership of a device which can watch TV. The TV licencing company don't like to admit it, but here is a quote from their webpage:
"Do I need a licence? If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one."
look at what they are not saying. they do not say that if you have a device that can record TV then you need a licence. they only say that if you *use* a TV or other device to receive TV then you need a licence.
My best friend used a TV purely for dvd's, xbox and playstation for years and after informing the TV licencing company they left him alone (for about a year, and then hassled him again) and didn't require him to buy a licence.
also note that you do not need to disable the TV tuner in a device either. simple not having it plugged into an aerial is technically enough. I think that detuning channels would be a wise move too:)
this guy managed to get an admittance of the facts from the TV licencing people
well, it is, or certainly was tied to the use of a television to watch broadcasts. if you only used one to watch DVD's or play PS2 games etc then you do not need a TV licence.
I'm hoping that if this goes through, then they'll connect the AIM and MSN networks. If only one good thing came out of the purchase, I'd hope it was that.
Why in the world would a person want their MOUSE to notify them when they get an Email?
Mouse!? Come on. What would it do? Jiggle slightly?
well, afaik, it's a little light on the mouse that will come on when you have email, and I can see a point. I rarely turn my computer off, but I do turn the monitors off at night. the email light would inform me that I have some spam to delete without me needing to turn the monitor on.
if it's the same mouse that I'm thinking of, it also has a light to inform you if you have any IM messages too.
of course, my machine is also a macintrash, and thus I'm prolly not gonna get any support for this either.
A better analogy than stealing hifi would be if looked through your window and watched your TV that you left turned on. Is that illegal? Is it immoral?
well, if this was in the UK, and the ownder of the house did not own a TV licence, then it would be a crime on the part of anyone who watched it, whether they knew about the licence or not, whether they were inside the house or not.
I'm sure it wouldn't be long until somebody creates a little dongle that will convert HDMI to a S-Video or Component signal and defeats any DRM imposed at the same time.
why lose the quality by downconverting to svideo or component?
This box will strip the HDCP off an incoming DVI inut and output un-encrypted DVI. you can downconvert that if you want, or keep it as top notch 1080i/720p
While I hadn;ty previously though of it, it does seem to make sense that with an open wireless access point with DHCP, a third party effectively does have permission to use it. While there may be no sign saying "please use this access point" the user has made a simple request to use it, and the equipment (the WAP) has not only responded in the affirmative, but has explicitly given the user the details it needs to make use of that access point. it has given out an IP address, netmask, default gateway and dns servers.
if there was no DHCP server then you would be trespassing, but with one, you have asked and been told "yes". perhaps the owner did not intend that his equipment would say yes, but that is his responsibility. he owns the equipment and he should be held partly responsible for what his equipment does.
interestingly, I was at a friends house last weekend with my wireless laptop, they had the wanadoo wireless rboadband kit and I was very impressed with it's "out of the box" security. unique SSID (wanadoo-1234 etc), WPA encrypted and the (26 or so character) key was written underneath the router, and it would only accept new mac addresses to associate if you pressed a button on the router to tell it to learn new addresses for a few minutes. basically you need to be able to touch the router at least once to be able to use it.
I'm sure it's more configurable from there but that was, I thought, a very secure base config, and one that your neighbours would not be able to make easy of use (technically, or in the eyes of the law).
in some ways I think more equipment should come like this out of the box, but then, I also think that in 5-10 years we'll mostly have ubiquitous net access perhaps via little things like this. I want to be able to open up my laptop anywhere and be able to get net access.
I'd be more keen on opening mine, but I'm unsure as to the legal viewpoint on it.
More importantly some of the major broadcasters are supporting it. There is one reason why I want to update iTunes to the one that supports Podcasting and that is In Our Time. A wonderful programme on BBC Radio 4.
yes, and I've subscribed to several of the bbc podcasts myself, but I would love the bbc to add more of their programs to the list. I'd love to hear some of their comedy works as well, in fact if only they'd make anything that is available as "listen again" as a podcast then I'd listen to alot more of the excellent bbc content than I do now.
I do appreciate that alot of the programs would be very difficult, legally, to 'podcast', such as radio 1 and 2 and the music rights. I guess they sail close to the edge now by streaming them using real player (but with no facility to rewind), but if they made all of their radio 4 content available (which I guess they must hold most of the rights to) then that would be excellent.
I am having some difficulty in deciding what it's useful for
well, that deopends how it works. the site is under some load at the moment so I can't read it. is the OS running locally in your web browser? or are you getting a shell to a web-based OS on the web-server?
if the latter then it could be very useful, esp if they can port ssh across. then users inside a corporate firewall can use it to get a shell outside the company that they can ssh from, when they may not have ssh access fgrom inside. and as it all runs in a browser, it should be sandboxed from the rest of the OS, and thus not be considered a security problem as such.
one wonders if you can run a webserver from a web based os?:) and host that OS inside itself...
You DO realize you just said computer security is stupid, don't you? What do you do for a living, write viruses?
no, he didn't. he asked why he can't install an app as a user? thing is, in unix, even debain he can. not in the system directories, but in his own dir. why should apt not support that? maybe it does, I've never used debian, but I think this is his point.
it's a good point though, security is a big concern, but so is useability. users want to install software, the system in general will let them, so why make them jump through hoops?
this one interests me. can we use it to make ichat effectively into a multiprotocol IM client? ideally I'd like to see apple run a worldwide jabber network with authorised gateways to AIM, MSN and yahoo. I doubt we'll see that though, I reckon ichat will conitue to work as now but also with an option to connect to a jabber server, hopefully any jabber server, not just the one that comes with tiger server.
can I run an aim and a jabber connection at the same time? will I have to run my own jabber server to be able to gateway to other networks and will this affect my ability to video conference with other ichat users (on aim).
I'm not expecting to be able to video conferene with MSN users (though it would be cool if we could) but just text chat would do.
I suspect you can. I think most bluetooth phones actually emulate 2 serial ports. set one to use one serial port and the other to use the other. that's how I have bluephone elite and isync working my bluetooth phone at the same time.
Last time around they said it was just too expensive, the question is if that's true or not.
hmm.. does this apply just to the official webcasts, or can people in the audience continue to type in live feeds so that the rest of us can find out what's going on real time from our desks?
isnt it a good advert for apple when millions are tuning into live webcasts to see what's happening? it's not like it's doing them any harm is it? the news is out there.
AIM users are like giant squid (but with fewer arms). You hear about them, occassionally a giant tentacle washes up on shore, but nobody's ever actually seen one.
it's obviously the group you're in. I know alot of people with aim and icq addresses. not all of them non-technical people either, some of them are extremely technically knowledgable. alot of them have icq accounts as it was the first major IM protocol (irc excluded, they all irc too:).
and aim and icq are connected so those two can talk to each other anyway. of course alot of apple users use aim as ichat is (currently) an aim client. the next version of ichat (with tiger) apparently supports jabber too.
so open your mind a bit. just because you don't see much useage of aim doesn't mean that no-one uses it. just no-one you know.
Slashdot Mirror
we already have HDMI. It supports digital video transfer, has loads of bandwidth and even supports the transport of audio along the same cable. It supports HDCP and it is the standard for High Definition TV. my TV has 2 HDMI ports already.
I know HDMI has a couple of issues, it currently doesn't hass 6 channel high definition audio along the cable, ie SACD and DVDA, but I believe that's due with v1.2 or 1.3, it's on the schedule anyway. The other issue I think is that it only supports video resolutions, ie 720p and 1080i/p. but I'm sure this could be easily revised in the next version to support other resolutions too.
make sure it has backwards compatibility and what's the problem? why do we need yet another connector when we have, and are already using a good one.
is there any other reason to introduce UDI?
dave
hmm.. can't find it anymore. might have been a different doc, not 181. it's been a few years since I did RIPE work but I'm sure I saw something about simple admin one-off charges being okay, but that IP addresses were effectively leased and thus should not be regularly charged for.
:)
maybe when I've got some spare time I'll try and look for it again
dave
so basically when roaming, all your connectivity goes via your own home? the problem is, that sucks. you're on holiday in states and your connection to load up anything has to go home and then out? using up your home bandwidth cap maybe? surely a better option would be for you to negotiate a connection with your HA and sort out a home address, and then initiate connections from your remote address but with a header of "if you lose me, send packets to my HA", then if you change IP, you renegotiate with your HA (who remembers your keys etc so he knows who you are). Your HA now knows where you've moved to, forwards any packets it has stored and you, the HA and the website re-negotiate your connections to your new address (without dropping them).
that way, you get the latency and bandwidth advantage of your current location while still able to roam. less requirements on your home dsl (ipv6/mobile ip capable) router and bandwidth.
does that make sense or am I missing something here?
dave
I'm still sure that's not allowed in europe at least, by RIPE-181. An admin charge can be applied, which I would see as a one off, but I don't see how they can justify a recurring charge for IP addresses, esp as they don't cost anything.
:)
of course, I only thought to ask RIPE itself after I stopped being a RIPE admin, hence they don't feel the need to answer my questions anymore
dave
I remember reading a while ago that NAT actually turned out to be better than IPv6 by virtue of it "solving" the limited number of addresses problem and simultaneously providing a defence against simple hacking attempts by hiding your real IP address.
:). there's lots of advertised features for ipv6 (mandatory encryption, mobile ip etc) that are good on paper, but aren't all that in the real world.
well, it's not "better" as such, just a different solution. NAT is not a golden bullet though. Yes, it does, by and large prevent random machines on the internet directly contacting your unpatched windows desktop at home, but a firewall will do that too, and virtually every dsl router has a firewall these days too. I would like to see home dsl routers supporting native ipv6 but I don't know of any.
I think that ipv6 is a good thing to go for, but it's not finished (but then, is ipv4?
Mandatory support for ipsec is great.. except how many of us would use it? as there is currently no support for mndatory ipsec encryption to unknown strangers. you've got to be pre-configured for crypto. I'd like to see something like ssh. if you know the key then great, if you don't then you can accept and save one and then while you may not have verified the destination, you're at least protected on the wire. yes, they also need to sort out authentication and perhaps some form of certificate distribution, but lets make a start on something useable.
mobile IP. sounds great! I can be using my ipv6 pda via my mobile phone and as I walk into my house, it picks up my wireless net and my downloads speed up instantly, all the while not dropping the voip call I'm making. or I'm using a laptop on the train and as it flits from hotspot to hotspot I don't lose any of my connections. sounds great! how does it work? you tell me, details are not easy to find. ots of talk, few working implementations (if I'm wrong, please tell me, I'm genuinely very interested).
working with networks as part of my job, I know how useful and really annoying NAT can be, and I really think it should be an option, not a requirement. I'd love to see ipv6 rolled out and see what changes it brings, but I also think it needs a fair amount of work still.
dave
Theft is a criminal offence and copyright violation is a civil one - HUGE difference
well, if the UK government has it's way, that won't be the case in europe for much longer. My MP hasn't gotten back to me about this yet...
dave
it's not theft, in the way that it's not theft. It may well be illegal, no-one is denying that, but calling it theft is disingenuous at best.
dave
Actually, it's never been tied to how you use it. Any household containing a device *capable* of receiving TV - including PCs with a TV tuner card - is subject to the license.
p
:)
not quite true. if you use a TV tuner card to watch tv, then yes, you need a licence, but the Licence is, or certainly was at the start of last year, only for the use of a TV to watch broadcasts. not purely for the ownership of a device which can watch TV. The TV licencing company don't like to admit it, but here is a quote from their webpage:
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/information/index.js
"Do I need a licence?
If you use a TV or any other device to receive or record TV programmes (for example, a VCR, set-top box, DVD recorder or PC with a broadcast card) - you need a TV Licence. You are required by law to have one."
look at what they are not saying. they do not say that if you have a device that can record TV then you need a licence. they only say that if you *use* a TV or other device to receive TV then you need a licence.
My best friend used a TV purely for dvd's, xbox and playstation for years and after informing the TV licencing company they left him alone (for about a year, and then hassled him again) and didn't require him to buy a licence.
also note that you do not need to disable the TV tuner in a device either. simple not having it plugged into an aerial is technically enough. I think that detuning channels would be a wise move too
this guy managed to get an admittance of the facts from the TV licencing people
http://www.jifvik.org/tv/tvl1.jpg
dave
The license fee is tied to television ownership
well, it is, or certainly was tied to the use of a television to watch broadcasts. if you only used one to watch DVD's or play PS2 games etc then you do not need a TV licence.
or have they "fixed" that by now?
dave
I'm hoping that if this goes through, then they'll connect the AIM and MSN networks. If only one good thing came out of the purchase, I'd hope it was that.
dave
Mouse!? Come on. What would it do? Jiggle slightly?
well, afaik, it's a little light on the mouse that will come on when you have email, and I can see a point. I rarely turn my computer off, but I do turn the monitors off at night. the email light would inform me that I have some spam to delete without me needing to turn the monitor on.
if it's the same mouse that I'm thinking of, it also has a light to inform you if you have any IM messages too.
of course, my machine is also a macintrash, and thus I'm prolly not gonna get any support for this either.
dave
A real vibrator is probably cheaper you know. But then, its the personal touches that counts...
surely a vibrator is all about personal touches...?
dave
A better analogy than stealing hifi would be if looked through your window and watched your TV that you left turned on. Is that illegal? Is it immoral?
well, if this was in the UK, and the ownder of the house did not own a TV licence, then it would be a crime on the part of anyone who watched it, whether they knew about the licence or not, whether they were inside the house or not.
dave
I'm sure it wouldn't be long until somebody creates a little dongle that will convert HDMI to a S-Video or Component signal and defeats any DRM imposed at the same time.
why lose the quality by downconverting to svideo or component?
This box will strip the HDCP off an incoming DVI inut and output un-encrypted DVI. you can downconvert that if you want, or keep it as top notch 1080i/720p
dave
While I hadn;ty previously though of it, it does seem to make sense that with an open wireless access point with DHCP, a third party effectively does have permission to use it. While there may be no sign saying "please use this access point" the user has made a simple request to use it, and the equipment (the WAP) has not only responded in the affirmative, but has explicitly given the user the details it needs to make use of that access point. it has given out an IP address, netmask, default gateway and dns servers.
if there was no DHCP server then you would be trespassing, but with one, you have asked and been told "yes". perhaps the owner did not intend that his equipment would say yes, but that is his responsibility. he owns the equipment and he should be held partly responsible for what his equipment does.
interestingly, I was at a friends house last weekend with my wireless laptop, they had the wanadoo wireless rboadband kit and I was very impressed with it's "out of the box" security. unique SSID (wanadoo-1234 etc), WPA encrypted and the (26 or so character) key was written underneath the router, and it would only accept new mac addresses to associate if you pressed a button on the router to tell it to learn new addresses for a few minutes. basically you need to be able to touch the router at least once to be able to use it.
I'm sure it's more configurable from there but that was, I thought, a very secure base config, and one that your neighbours would not be able to make easy of use (technically, or in the eyes of the law).
in some ways I think more equipment should come like this out of the box, but then, I also think that in 5-10 years we'll mostly have ubiquitous net access perhaps via little things like this. I want to be able to open up my laptop anywhere and be able to get net access.
I'd be more keen on opening mine, but I'm unsure as to the legal viewpoint on it.
dave
More importantly some of the major broadcasters are supporting it. There is one reason why I want to update iTunes to the one that supports Podcasting and that is In Our Time. A wonderful programme on BBC Radio 4.
yes, and I've subscribed to several of the bbc podcasts myself, but I would love the bbc to add more of their programs to the list. I'd love to hear some of their comedy works as well, in fact if only they'd make anything that is available as "listen again" as a podcast then I'd listen to alot more of the excellent bbc content than I do now.
I do appreciate that alot of the programs would be very difficult, legally, to 'podcast', such as radio 1 and 2 and the music rights. I guess they sail close to the edge now by streaming them using real player (but with no facility to rewind), but if they made all of their radio 4 content available (which I guess they must hold most of the rights to) then that would be excellent.
dave
I am having some difficulty in deciding what it's useful for
:) and host that OS inside itself...
well, that deopends how it works. the site is under some load at the moment so I can't read it. is the OS running locally in your web browser? or are you getting a shell to a web-based OS on the web-server?
if the latter then it could be very useful, esp if they can port ssh across. then users inside a corporate firewall can use it to get a shell outside the company that they can ssh from, when they may not have ssh access fgrom inside. and as it all runs in a browser, it should be sandboxed from the rest of the OS, and thus not be considered a security problem as such.
one wonders if you can run a webserver from a web based os?
dave
You DO realize you just said computer security is stupid, don't you? What do you do for a living, write viruses?
no, he didn't. he asked why he can't install an app as a user? thing is, in unix, even debain he can. not in the system directories, but in his own dir. why should apt not support that? maybe it does, I've never used debian, but I think this is his point.
it's a good point though, security is a big concern, but so is useability. users want to install software, the system in general will let them, so why make them jump through hoops?
dave
- Jabber IM support.
this one interests me. can we use it to make ichat effectively into a multiprotocol IM client? ideally I'd like to see apple run a worldwide jabber network with authorised gateways to AIM, MSN and yahoo. I doubt we'll see that though, I reckon ichat will conitue to work as now but also with an option to connect to a jabber server, hopefully any jabber server, not just the one that comes with tiger server.
can I run an aim and a jabber connection at the same time? will I have to run my own jabber server to be able to gateway to other networks and will this affect my ability to video conference with other ichat users (on aim).
I'm not expecting to be able to video conferene with MSN users (though it would be cool if we could) but just text chat would do.
anyone got any experience with this?
dave
I suspect you can. I think most bluetooth phones actually emulate 2 serial ports. set one to use one serial port and the other to use the other. that's how I have bluephone elite and isync working my bluetooth phone at the same time.
dave
Ahh there you are zocalo. I thought you'd disappeared off the face off the earth, I was about to phone you or something :)
mail me willya, I've no bloody idea what your email address is these days.
dave
PS. yeah yeah, offtopic
Last time around they said it was just too expensive, the question is if that's true or not.
hmm.. does this apply just to the official webcasts, or can people in the audience continue to type in live feeds so that the rest of us can find out what's going on real time from our desks?
dave
isnt it a good advert for apple when millions are tuning into live webcasts to see what's happening? it's not like it's doing them any harm is it? the news is out there.
dave
I noticed more features with the ICQ protocol, such as SecureIM
:)
I use iChat and I notice more features with aim, such as video conferencing
of course, it's an add on, but so is secureim
dave
AIM users are like giant squid (but with fewer arms). You hear about them, occassionally a giant tentacle washes up on shore, but nobody's ever actually seen one.
:).
it's obviously the group you're in. I know alot of people with aim and icq addresses. not all of them non-technical people either, some of them are extremely technically knowledgable. alot of them have icq accounts as it was the first major IM protocol (irc excluded, they all irc too
and aim and icq are connected so those two can talk to each other anyway. of course alot of apple users use aim as ichat is (currently) an aim client. the next version of ichat (with tiger) apparently supports jabber too.
so open your mind a bit. just because you don't see much useage of aim doesn't mean that no-one uses it. just no-one you know.
dave