No, it isn't. DVI and HDMI are not signal compatible. HDMI is physically similar, and HDMI equipment can revert to DVI mode to interface with older DVI equipment.
Either the DVI output sends DVI signalling, and the HDMI input revers to DVI mode, or the DVI output blindly outputs HDMI signalling, and then reverts to DVI if the opposite end cannot communicate. The former method is the proper behavior, but does not allow audio. The latter method allows audio, if both ends support it, but is "dirty". Using a ROM to identify the presence of the adapter allows the improved capabilities of HDMI, without the uncertainty.
HDMI and DVI are not electrically identical. As you yourself stated, the wires do different things. They support audio, in addition to just video, on the same pins as are normally used to support video. That means either the HDMI device needs to operate in DVI mode, or the DVI device needs to operate in HDMI mode. This ROM is to tell the DVI device to operate in HDMI mode, rather than waiting for the HDMI device to fall back to DVI mode.
Except, those are only physical adapters. DVI and HDMI are two different languages. If you're connecting a DVI output to an HDMI input, one side of the other needs to be able to switch modes. Typically, the DVI output outputs DVI, and the HDMI input runs in DVI mode. With the ROM, the DVI output now outputs HDMI, which in turn supports audio. If you actually had an adapter which converted between DVI and HDMI electrically, it would cost you $50 rather than $5.
The ROM tells the TMDS transmitters to use HDMI signalling on the DVI port, which sends packets over three data channels and allows audio, rather than DVI signalling, which sends subpixel data over three color channels and does not allow audio.
Pretty sure no, because DVI and HDMI signalling is very much different. DVI has dedicated red, green, and blue wires, over which it sends a synchronized bitstream of sub-pixels. HDMI uses those three wires as generic data channels, which are used in parallel to send packets containing pixels, or audio data, or whatever you want. DVI and HDMI are physical compatible, but not electronically.
Not really. We have plenty of examples of machinery capable of firing small projectiles at high cyclic rates. Creating one that can do so with their target pellet, precisely, and without damaging it, is a minor engineering problem. The real problem is creating an ignition LASER that can be fired just as rapidly, considering how long it currently takes to charge the gain material, and that they can only get a couple shots off before the LASER must be repaired.
On the contrary, in light of all the press mainstream media is giving government spying and restrictions on the internet, taking a volume hit as they move production outside of China, because they refused to deny an application that offered privacy and universal access to the internet, could be spun off as an absolutely massive PR campaign. "Feel good about buying Apple products, because we're helping you stick it to the man."
But, why an RPi? It's a painfully low end piece of hardware. At least get something like a BeagleBone or one of the A10 boards. They've got the same power envelope, trading graphics that you won't use for a better CPU, more memory, better interconnects, and they don't cost significantly more.
Quantitatively, not so much. In terms of percentage of GDP, the US is above average, not outrageous. You have to realize that the US's GDP is as high as the next three countries combined.
If you allow web sites to require DRM, the web is no longer open. That's all there is to it. If you browsers must protect content, then browsers must be certified and signed before they can access the content. Had your desire to prevent the theft of your hard work guided the original protocols of the internet, it never would have become the important communications resource it is today.
That's not at all what is meant when one refers to obscurity. Security through obscurity is the claim that a black box is inherently more secure than one in which you know the inner workings, or in this case, it's the claim that a black box you've never seen before is inherently more secure than one which you have had time to analyze. All it's going to do is make you a less appetizing target for an attacker looking for anyone to compromise. It makes no difference to your vulnerability when an attacker wants to compromise you specifically.
... and that's the very definition of security through obscurity. If it's well secured, then it's well secured and it doesn't matter what it is. Either way, you're only going to be vulnerable to a targeted attack by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Using a "niche os" only matters against cursory scans trawling the internet for systems with poor passwords or known (and long-since-patched) bugs, and a "well secured niche os" wouldn't worry about such things anyway.
I'm not relying entirely on security via obscurity. But if the OS is not the most common mainstream noob-used OS, then it is going to see less effort put towards hacking it.
That's called "security via obscurity". Such properties will only protect you against the basic automated scan, but then so will simply using good security practices, and if you're using good security practices, there's no point even mentioning the modicum of protection offered by using an uncommon OS.
Considering we now have fertility clinics that allow that portion of the population to breed, when that phenotype would have otherwise been rapidly selected against, it makes logical sense, of course it will be centuries before we actually see any measurable effect.
There is no such thing as an objective morality. Morality is what you believe to be good or bad, as dictated by some higher power. Morality does not exist outside of religion, and until you can prove religion to be factual, morality is subjective. Ethics are what you believe to be good or bad, as determined by your own logic and reason, however your reason is still subject to your limited observations, and thus ultimately subjective as well.
That argument is close, but wrong. They're amoral. Morality is something that exists only because you think some higher power deems it proper. Being immoral means you believe in such a moral code, but you choose to violate it. Being amoral means you believe in them at all. Don't confuse morals with ethics. Morals are external, ethics are internal.
The term "nines" is generally only used when you're tracking something that is measured only as pass/fail, and thus has no variation to produce a normal distribution.
Slashdot Mirror
No, it isn't. DVI and HDMI are not signal compatible. HDMI is physically similar, and HDMI equipment can revert to DVI mode to interface with older DVI equipment.
Either the DVI output sends DVI signalling, and the HDMI input revers to DVI mode, or the DVI output blindly outputs HDMI signalling, and then reverts to DVI if the opposite end cannot communicate. The former method is the proper behavior, but does not allow audio. The latter method allows audio, if both ends support it, but is "dirty". Using a ROM to identify the presence of the adapter allows the improved capabilities of HDMI, without the uncertainty.
HDMI and DVI are not electrically identical. As you yourself stated, the wires do different things. They support audio, in addition to just video, on the same pins as are normally used to support video. That means either the HDMI device needs to operate in DVI mode, or the DVI device needs to operate in HDMI mode. This ROM is to tell the DVI device to operate in HDMI mode, rather than waiting for the HDMI device to fall back to DVI mode.
Except, those are only physical adapters. DVI and HDMI are two different languages. If you're connecting a DVI output to an HDMI input, one side of the other needs to be able to switch modes. Typically, the DVI output outputs DVI, and the HDMI input runs in DVI mode. With the ROM, the DVI output now outputs HDMI, which in turn supports audio. If you actually had an adapter which converted between DVI and HDMI electrically, it would cost you $50 rather than $5.
The ROM tells the TMDS transmitters to use HDMI signalling on the DVI port, which sends packets over three data channels and allows audio, rather than DVI signalling, which sends subpixel data over three color channels and does not allow audio.
Pretty sure no, because DVI and HDMI signalling is very much different. DVI has dedicated red, green, and blue wires, over which it sends a synchronized bitstream of sub-pixels. HDMI uses those three wires as generic data channels, which are used in parallel to send packets containing pixels, or audio data, or whatever you want. DVI and HDMI are physical compatible, but not electronically.
Not really. We have plenty of examples of machinery capable of firing small projectiles at high cyclic rates. Creating one that can do so with their target pellet, precisely, and without damaging it, is a minor engineering problem. The real problem is creating an ignition LASER that can be fired just as rapidly, considering how long it currently takes to charge the gain material, and that they can only get a couple shots off before the LASER must be repaired.
Sure, but then you're adding an extra two characters.
It's a *prototype*. The power supply can be rengineered to use something other than an IC engine in the future.
Figuring that one out will be a world changer.
*waves hands* This is not the hypocracy you are looking for.
It would be quite a hit to apples reputation
On the contrary, in light of all the press mainstream media is giving government spying and restrictions on the internet, taking a volume hit as they move production outside of China, because they refused to deny an application that offered privacy and universal access to the internet, could be spun off as an absolutely massive PR campaign. "Feel good about buying Apple products, because we're helping you stick it to the man."
But, why an RPi? It's a painfully low end piece of hardware. At least get something like a BeagleBone or one of the A10 boards. They've got the same power envelope, trading graphics that you won't use for a better CPU, more memory, better interconnects, and they don't cost significantly more.
Quantitatively, not so much. In terms of percentage of GDP, the US is above average, not outrageous. You have to realize that the US's GDP is as high as the next three countries combined.
If you allow web sites to require DRM, the web is no longer open. That's all there is to it. If you browsers must protect content, then browsers must be certified and signed before they can access the content. Had your desire to prevent the theft of your hard work guided the original protocols of the internet, it never would have become the important communications resource it is today.
That's not at all what is meant when one refers to obscurity. Security through obscurity is the claim that a black box is inherently more secure than one in which you know the inner workings, or in this case, it's the claim that a black box you've never seen before is inherently more secure than one which you have had time to analyze. All it's going to do is make you a less appetizing target for an attacker looking for anyone to compromise. It makes no difference to your vulnerability when an attacker wants to compromise you specifically.
... and that's the very definition of security through obscurity. If it's well secured, then it's well secured and it doesn't matter what it is. Either way, you're only going to be vulnerable to a targeted attack by someone who actually knows what they're doing. Using a "niche os" only matters against cursory scans trawling the internet for systems with poor passwords or known (and long-since-patched) bugs, and a "well secured niche os" wouldn't worry about such things anyway.
So, there is about as much FreeBSD code in Android as there is GNU code? Linux is just a kernel, GNU is the operating system. FreeBSD is both.
I'm not relying entirely on security via obscurity. But if the OS is not the most common mainstream noob-used OS, then it is going to see less effort put towards hacking it.
That's called "security via obscurity". Such properties will only protect you against the basic automated scan, but then so will simply using good security practices, and if you're using good security practices, there's no point even mentioning the modicum of protection offered by using an uncommon OS.
Considering we now have fertility clinics that allow that portion of the population to breed, when that phenotype would have otherwise been rapidly selected against, it makes logical sense, of course it will be centuries before we actually see any measurable effect.
Also, you are racist for thinking all members of the same "race" practice the same culture.
No. Behavior that causes harm to society is unethical, not immoral. Morality is something that only matters to religion.
There is no such thing as an objective morality. Morality is what you believe to be good or bad, as dictated by some higher power. Morality does not exist outside of religion, and until you can prove religion to be factual, morality is subjective. Ethics are what you believe to be good or bad, as determined by your own logic and reason, however your reason is still subject to your limited observations, and thus ultimately subjective as well.
I was always a fan of CRM114...
That argument is close, but wrong. They're amoral. Morality is something that exists only because you think some higher power deems it proper. Being immoral means you believe in such a moral code, but you choose to violate it. Being amoral means you believe in them at all. Don't confuse morals with ethics. Morals are external, ethics are internal.
The term "nines" is generally only used when you're tracking something that is measured only as pass/fail, and thus has no variation to produce a normal distribution.