people didn't ask for an "Entertainment System" or a "64" -- it was always a "Nintendo" --
No shit. Notice how I mentioned in my post about only using the company name when it helps the acronym.
NES N64
I mean damn, this is obvious. The full technical name of the console includes the company name. The basic name for the product does not, and it is left off in common usage. "I bought a Microsoft XBox and a Sony Playstation 2" vs. "I bought an Xbox and a PS2".
By having the same basic name for the console they are implying a relationship that does not exist.
Calling everything in sight a "Nintendo" is what people do when they are too lazy to even know what the hell they are talking about. "What kind of car did you get? A Ford!" This is even evidenced by your comment about being then asked "What kind?". Imagine walking into a McDonald's and asking "I would like a McDonald's (food product)." Sound stupid? -- because it is.
So anyways, you're still wrong, and fundamentally misunderstood this entire point that I'm making.
See how easy this is? The two console names are basically the same. But yet the consoles themselves are completely different. This is going to go against customer expectations because right now the established practice is:
- New console with only new games -> New Name! - New console with upgraded games -> Upgraded Name!
I haven't seen anybody else mention this, but the first thing that I thought of when I read the tagline was DRM. Maybe Microsoft is taking its first steps in getting people to accept DRM, this first one being the one that gets people used to not having any backwards compatibility. Once people are used to having to change, it's a lot easier to keep them moving. Also, they'd be much more receptive to "new and better" technology as the old is slowly killed off and disappears.
Well, even if this isn't for DRM acceptance, it could easily be for Longhorn acceptance and adoption. If they can no longer use apps written 4,5, 10 years ago, they really have no other choice but to finally "upgrade".
You have the consoles listed with their respective company names. If you spent a microsecond of thought on that you'd realize of course those don't count as part of the console's name and the console's names are entirely unrelated.
The list is really: Entertainment System (Family Computer) Super Entertainment System 64 GameCube
CD Saturn Dreamcast
Just like how we don't include the company name when referring to them casually, except when it helps the acronym. So yes, different name, different console, different games (i.e. DIFFERENT).
This is unlike: Playstation Playstation 2 XBox XBox Next
where the names are obviously "built-off" one another, maybe even an "upgraded" versionpossibly indicating..... a relation of some sort?
His previous statement made light of fallacies in eps 1 and 2, and I think it is safe to assume that his following statement was also regarding them, especially in light of the known infatuation Lucas had with his movies being all digital (and the freedom for special effects that gives).
I know the spyware that you got. I believe it was New.net, and some other crap related to it. It happened to my aunt's computer, and I went over to remove it. I figured, no big deal, Ad-aware fixed it no problem. Well, her computer was broken after that. The problem was same one you had.
The problem was in the way that Ad-aware removed the spyware. It simply deleted the files and registry settings that it needed to. Well, except for one. The spyware had installed its own hook into the Windows Tcp/ip stack. The tcp/ip stack supports hooks, in sort of a chain-link fashion. Each hook gets a turn, down the line, on working with whatever is happening. Well, since Ad-aware deleted the file, the whole system broke down. Why Windows can't recover from this and just skip over the damn hook, I don't know.
Reinstalling was not an option, so I did some research and eventually found a fix. It will restore the registry settings for the whole tcp/ip stack. I think somebody already mentioned it. I was LSPFix.
Anyways, just in case anyone ever sees a computer for the New.net garbage, be prepared to fix the tcp/ip stack also. I know I was caught unexpected. It took my a few days to fix, because I had to find and download the fix from my house, as her computer couldn't access the internet properly.
I totally agree with your sentiment, about that class being the "truest". It's direct relation to programming languages, and even computers in general is so outstanding, it is sad that your classmate could not see it.
To explain mysef, relatively new programming languages are all just context-free grammars, and computers are just exceedingly complex Turing machines. Both of these ideas are part of Automata, and part of the deeper understanding of computing science.
Your classmate probably just wanted to learn to code (as in monkey-style), and not do anything more abstract.
By just publishing the information you allow the "bad" company plenty of time to submit the patent to the Patent Office, where it will sit for years, and get accepted of course, because they will never *ever* see the prior art. When this happens, the only way to rectify their "fake" patent is to have it overturned. That means you have to go through the entire process, involving legal battles, prior art collection, proving that it is obvious to a professional in the field, etc. And did I mention that there will be plenty of barriers to overcome because, well they got the patent already didn't they? Shouldn't it have been denied in the first place if they didn't deserve it?
It's a mess. The costs of doing it that way versus having a defensive-type patent are so much greater, it is ridiculous. With a defensive-type patent already filed, you could prove right away that it was entirely the mistake of the Patent Office. Nothing else would come into play.
Think about this: Your suggestion of preventing patents by publishing the information first is HOW WE DO THINGS TODAY! And look where it got us!
But the OSX versions are direct upgrades on the previous versions. The Windows versions you mentioned are different versions for different situations. They are not in the same line.
You can't really compare those releases with the OSX ones.
Re:SIlence is a pipe dream for me
on
A Silent PC Solution?
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
Newer version of VNC have starting using video driver hooks for up performance. I was always a fan of VNC for my windows boxes (free!), but always hated how slow it was. With this new driver hook stuff, it works just as well as Remote Desktop, I think. It's about 90% the speed of sitting at the real machine.
Anyways, because the driver hook is part of the base VNC code, all of the VNC derivatives have it (TightVNC, Ultr@VNC, etc).
It a very fascinating book, detailing the author's research on a past civilization, that may have lived on the antarctic continent. One of the ideas that he discusses is what the parent poster mentioned.
The meaning of "crustal displacement" is that it is possible that the entire crustal surface of the Earth may slide around from time to time, as a whole, over top of the soft mantle layer.
The explanation for this is that ice builds up at the poles. Huge ice structures, like what we have today. As anyone knows, when something is spinning rapidly it will tend to move its heaviest points outwards, towards the area of the spin where the equator would be with the Earth (like when something is top heavy and it wobbles uncontrollably, eventually falling over). Eventually the ice because massive enough that it does just this. The entire sufarce of the Earth will slide around, with the icy parts being thrown towards the equator. This means that at one point the Antarctic continent may have been a warm tropical land mass at the equator, and was only moved down there the last time that this happened.
The ancient stories about floods, and lost civilizations would have sprung from when Antarctica was thrown south, and the huge masses of ice were melting in the equatorial region, causing a sea level rise.
Anyways, I really enjoyed the book, and it has a wide range of information about links between south american cultures and egyptian ones, among others, suggesting that there may have been one single past root civilization.
Whew, I finally figured out what that said. It only took about 5 mins, a mirror, and some head-scratching.
For all of those who don't have a mirror handy, or are too lazy (who are we kidding:), it says:
the buffer to little-endian this function transforms
One more thing: I guess this function knows how big a buffer to convert? I mean, is it converting some words to little-endian or dwords? hmm, what about 64-bit ints? Doesn't seem very clear. I hope this didn't come out of the Linux kernel:P
What this means for consumers is that, after prices come down, we are talking about some serious storage capabilities in portable devices. Something like the ipod mini, except more on the order of 150gigs, 200gigs, who knows by the time the price comes down.
It would be a mini personal server, where you could carry around with you almost all convenient data you would want, really. Your entire music collection...your entire divx collection...both? How about something like your resume, all of your email, some source code you are working on. Whatever. This idea has been thrown around here on slashdot before, it's nothing new. But at least now it would be more applicable.
I always loved Q. He was what I always wanted to be when I grew up. Infinite powers, a charmingly captivating wit, and a sweet name like Q (well they were all the Q Continuum, but still...).
Well, looks like it's too late. Damn.
Anyways, the idea of a movie about Q would rock. His trial for humanity provided the whole background for TNG, which I feel really helped out the overall feel for the show. It really gave the show some coherence, as sort of a sub story that continued on always, throughout the whole show.
I think it epitomized Roddenbury's view of how humanity should be -- accepting what you have done wrong, but constantly striving to be better. There are a lot of good ideas to work with there.
When water freezes, it takes up more volume than when it is a solid. This has to do with the fact that ice has a different molecular structure than water (the H20 molecules ring up into little hexagons). Think about this, the glaciers in the north pole are floating. Therefore they must be less dense than the water they are floating in, therefore the ice *CANNOT* take up the same amount of volume. Now if the ice melts, you would in fact have a reduction in volume, meaning the sea level would lower.
However, the glaciers extend far above the surface. Something like 30% of the glacier will be above the water level. All of that will go into the ocean as the glacier melts. This may not sound like much, but we are talking *cubic kilometers* of ice here. Tons of it.
Now the question is how much do they cancel out? Does the reduction from ice->water cancel out the addition from ice above the surface -> sea?
What you said about the South Pole is indeed right though. Much of the ice is kilometers thick on top of the antarctica continent. All of that would have a completely positive effect on the sea level.
By traveling faster through space, we travel slower through time. This scales so perfectly,....
Perhaps somebody could answer this for me. I've heard of this theory before, and to me it makes a lot of sense. However, when measuring this, have scientists found that it does indeed scale correctly? I've heard of an experiment involving a plane containing an atomic clock that flew around for awhile, and proved this effect (afterwards the clock was slower than it should have been).
Have they been able to extrapolate from this, to prove that the velocities in each dimensions do scale on an 1:1 basis, inverted? It would be interesting if the equation was not 1:1, but something like: Overall Velocity Constant = (Velocity in Space)^2 + (Velocity in Time)
Instead of the 1:1 equation of: Overall Velocity Constant = (Velocity in Space) + (Velocity in Time)
Meaning if you speed up to 0.5 c you are not going 50% slower in time, but more like only 25% slower. I guess the implications would be that the space and time dimensions are not orthogonal but stetched in one way or the other?
I think the poster is referring to the different options available when you create a playlist.
I haven't used it really myself, but I know that you can do a lot with it. iTunes and the iPod keep track of the last time a song was played, and coupling that together with keying off of the song genre/artist/whatever, you could create the two shuffle patterns described.
Of course, this is for a playlist that you have to create. So you would have to give some more effort to it, than say selecting from a radio button.
That's sweet. Does the song info on the display actually correspond to what is playing on the iPod? (The Hook Me Up part in the picture.) I didn't know the dock connector could send that type of information.
But, nice, that is exactly what I'm talking about.
Oh, and about taking your eyes off the road -- you know what I meant. With this unit you're taking your eyes off the road to look at a nice bright LCD display with only a few lines of text, and not the tiny screen on the iPod. There is a big difference. Well I guess you could say the iPod's screen is a decent size, but the tiny font is what makes it hard to see. (Plus it's black on white, instead of white on black)
One more thing off topic: Cool, I actually got a response to a slashdot comment with information that could help me in real life:)
You're driving down the interstate, and a song comes on that's extrememly loud, or your cell phone starts ringing, and you need to turn down the volume (yes you could pause for the cell phone, but what about the song?). Either way you're already distracted and not thinking about driving.
You reach for the iPod instinctively, woops, can't turn down the volume from that thing (remember, he's using the line out).
So you remember, oh yeah, have to work the volume from the stereo unit. So you reach up there, change the volume, and finally get back to what you were doing.
Yes, it's a nitpick. Yes, it's not that huge of a problem. But yes, it's just something that I wanted to point out that has bugged me before. I can easily see the situation above taking a couple of seconds, which is enough to warrant some thought.
Ever since I got my iPod, I've dreamt and drooled over the possibility of using it in my car. But I just have never thought up a good way to really integrate it, and I mean fully, like having an easy way to choose songs to play, hit play/pause, change the volume, etc, that is just as easy to use an in dash player that supports mp3's.
Having it sit somewhere mounted is a good start, but you still would have to reach down there and twiddle the buttons. And in an big vehicle like an Explorer? That would get old, quick.
By the looks of the pictures, he is using the line out connector on the bottom. You can't change the volume that's coming out of that right? I mean not from the iPod, therefore you'd have to use the main stereo for that. So you would have two places to reach now, for different activities. You would have reach down to the iPod to change songs and pause, and reach to the stereo to change the volume. That little extra step of deciding where need to reach would be a huge burden when you're going down the interstate at 70mph.
If anybody has thought of a good way to integrate the iPod into a car, I want to know. Right now my setup is using the headphone jack to connect to the aux input of my stereo, and using the inline remote that came with it. I can at least do all functions from one place (the headphone jack can have it's volume adjusted), but I can't really charge it well, because then I'd have a connector sticking out of the bottom *and* top. What I would like is for the iPod to have a docking place like in the article, but still be able to do everything easily, from one place, without needing to look too much. Maybe I need a wireless remote? Maybe I'm asking too much.:)
Slashdot Mirror
No shit. Notice how I mentioned in my post about only using the company name when it helps the acronym.
NES
N64
I mean damn, this is obvious. The full technical name of the console includes the company name. The basic name for the product does not, and it is left off in common usage. "I bought a Microsoft XBox and a Sony Playstation 2" vs. "I bought an Xbox and a PS2".
By having the same basic name for the console they are implying a relationship that does not exist.
Calling everything in sight a "Nintendo" is what people do when they are too lazy to even know what the hell they are talking about. "What kind of car did you get? A Ford!" This is even evidenced by your comment about being then asked "What kind?". Imagine walking into a McDonald's and asking "I would like a McDonald's (food product)." Sound stupid? -- because it is.
So anyways, you're still wrong, and fundamentally misunderstood this entire point that I'm making.
Let's try it in code.See how easy this is? The two console names are basically the same. But yet the consoles themselves are completely different. This is going to go against customer expectations because right now the established practice is:
- New console with only new games -> New Name!
- New console with upgraded games -> Upgraded Name!
I haven't seen anybody else mention this, but the first thing that I thought of when I read the tagline was DRM. Maybe Microsoft is taking its first steps in getting people to accept DRM, this first one being the one that gets people used to not having any backwards compatibility. Once people are used to having to change, it's a lot easier to keep them moving. Also, they'd be much more receptive to "new and better" technology as the old is slowly killed off and disappears.
Well, even if this isn't for DRM acceptance, it could easily be for Longhorn acceptance and adoption. If they can no longer use apps written 4,5, 10 years ago, they really have no other choice but to finally "upgrade".
You have the consoles listed with their respective company names. If you spent a microsecond of thought on that you'd realize of course those don't count as part of the console's name and the console's names are entirely unrelated.
..... a relation of some sort?
The list is really:
Entertainment System (Family Computer)
Super Entertainment System
64
GameCube
CD
Saturn
Dreamcast
Just like how we don't include the company name when referring to them casually, except when it helps the acronym. So yes, different name, different console, different games (i.e. DIFFERENT).
This is unlike:
Playstation
Playstation 2
XBox
XBox Next
where the names are obviously "built-off" one another, maybe even an "upgraded" versionpossibly indicating
So there.
I believe he meant Star Wars, not Trek.
His previous statement made light of fallacies in eps 1 and 2, and I think it is safe to assume that his following statement was also regarding them, especially in light of the known infatuation Lucas had with his movies being all digital (and the freedom for special effects that gives).
I know the spyware that you got. I believe it was New.net, and some other crap related to it. It happened to my aunt's computer, and I went over to remove it. I figured, no big deal, Ad-aware fixed it no problem. Well, her computer was broken after that. The problem was same one you had.
The problem was in the way that Ad-aware removed the spyware. It simply deleted the files and registry settings that it needed to. Well, except for one. The spyware had installed its own hook into the Windows Tcp/ip stack. The tcp/ip stack supports hooks, in sort of a chain-link fashion. Each hook gets a turn, down the line, on working with whatever is happening. Well, since Ad-aware deleted the file, the whole system broke down. Why Windows can't recover from this and just skip over the damn hook, I don't know.
Reinstalling was not an option, so I did some research and eventually found a fix. It will restore the registry settings for the whole tcp/ip stack. I think somebody already mentioned it. I was LSPFix.
Anyways, just in case anyone ever sees a computer for the New.net garbage, be prepared to fix the tcp/ip stack also. I know I was caught unexpected. It took my a few days to fix, because I had to find and download the fix from my house, as her computer couldn't access the internet properly.
I totally agree with your sentiment, about that class being the "truest". It's direct relation to programming languages, and even computers in general is so outstanding, it is sad that your classmate could not see it.
To explain mysef, relatively new programming languages are all just context-free grammars, and computers are just exceedingly complex Turing machines. Both of these ideas are part of Automata, and part of the deeper understanding of computing science.
Your classmate probably just wanted to learn to code (as in monkey-style), and not do anything more abstract.
No this is completely a horrid idea.
By just publishing the information you allow the "bad" company plenty of time to submit the patent to the Patent Office, where it will sit for years, and get accepted of course, because they will never *ever* see the prior art. When this happens, the only way to rectify their "fake" patent is to have it overturned. That means you have to go through the entire process, involving legal battles, prior art collection, proving that it is obvious to a professional in the field, etc. And did I mention that there will be plenty of barriers to overcome because, well they got the patent already didn't they? Shouldn't it have been denied in the first place if they didn't deserve it?
It's a mess. The costs of doing it that way versus having a defensive-type patent are so much greater, it is ridiculous. With a defensive-type patent already filed, you could prove right away that it was entirely the mistake of the Patent Office. Nothing else would come into play.
Think about this: Your suggestion of preventing patents by publishing the information first is HOW WE DO THINGS TODAY! And look where it got us!
But the OSX versions are direct upgrades on the previous versions. The Windows versions you mentioned are different versions for different situations. They are not in the same line.
You can't really compare those releases with the OSX ones.
Newer version of VNC have starting using video driver hooks for up performance. I was always a fan of VNC for my windows boxes (free!), but always hated how slow it was. With this new driver hook stuff, it works just as well as Remote Desktop, I think. It's about 90% the speed of sitting at the real machine.
Anyways, because the driver hook is part of the base VNC code, all of the VNC derivatives have it (TightVNC, Ultr@VNC, etc).
I'd check it out.
I first heard about this in the book Fingerprints of the Gods.
:P
It a very fascinating book, detailing the author's research on a past civilization, that may have lived on the antarctic continent. One of the ideas that he discusses is what the parent poster mentioned.
The meaning of "crustal displacement" is that it is possible that the entire crustal surface of the Earth may slide around from time to time, as a whole, over top of the soft mantle layer.
The explanation for this is that ice builds up at the poles. Huge ice structures, like what we have today. As anyone knows, when something is spinning rapidly it will tend to move its heaviest points outwards, towards the area of the spin where the equator would be with the Earth (like when something is top heavy and it wobbles uncontrollably, eventually falling over). Eventually the ice because massive enough that it does just this. The entire sufarce of the Earth will slide around, with the icy parts being thrown towards the equator. This means that at one point the Antarctic continent may have been a warm tropical land mass at the equator, and was only moved down there the last time that this happened.
The ancient stories about floods, and lost civilizations would have sprung from when Antarctica was thrown south, and the huge masses of ice were melting in the equatorial region, causing a sea level rise.
Anyways, I really enjoyed the book, and it has a wide range of information about links between south american cultures and egyptian ones, among others, suggesting that there may have been one single past root civilization.
And no this is not a plug.
Could you provide some more information on this? It sounds very interesting. I looked around on google, but couldn't find relating to this.
Good ol' Cobol.
:)
For someone who grew up on C, Cobol is more like self-obfuscating.
Whew, I finally figured out what that said. It only took about 5 mins, a mirror, and some head-scratching.
For all of those who don't have a mirror handy, or are too lazy (who are we kidding
One more thing:
I guess this function knows how big a buffer to convert? I mean, is it converting some words to little-endian or dwords? hmm, what about 64-bit ints? Doesn't seem very clear. I hope this didn't come out of the Linux kernel
http://slashdot.org/articles/02/12/15/1759227.shtm l?tid=141
Hehe, your post made me crack up laughing. If only I had had some mod points, I would have given them all to you. :)
..but don't ask me what that means for consumers
What this means for consumers is that, after prices come down, we are talking about some serious storage capabilities in portable devices. Something like the ipod mini, except more on the order of 150gigs, 200gigs, who knows by the time the price comes down.
It would be a mini personal server, where you could carry around with you almost all convenient data you would want, really. Your entire music collection...your entire divx collection...both? How about something like your resume, all of your email, some source code you are working on. Whatever. This idea has been thrown around here on slashdot before, it's nothing new. But at least now it would be more applicable.
Heh, you're right. I guess I misread where you said "displaces", and figured you said something else.
Indeed the ice will have the same mass regardless if it melts. Therefore you have the same mass of stuff in the water before and after it melts, d'oh.
Sorry to jump the submit button.
I always loved Q. He was what I always wanted to be when I grew up. Infinite powers, a charmingly captivating wit, and a sweet name like Q (well they were all the Q Continuum, but still...).
Well, looks like it's too late. Damn.
Anyways, the idea of a movie about Q would rock. His trial for humanity provided the whole background for TNG, which I feel really helped out the overall feel for the show. It really gave the show some coherence, as sort of a sub story that continued on always, throughout the whole show.
I think it epitomized Roddenbury's view of how humanity should be -- accepting what you have done wrong, but constantly striving to be better. There are a lot of good ideas to work with there.
P.S. John Delancie is the man.
When water freezes, it takes up more volume than when it is a solid. This has to do with the fact that ice has a different molecular structure than water (the H20 molecules ring up into little hexagons). Think about this, the glaciers in the north pole are floating. Therefore they must be less dense than the water they are floating in, therefore the ice *CANNOT* take up the same amount of volume. Now if the ice melts, you would in fact have a reduction in volume, meaning the sea level would lower.
However, the glaciers extend far above the surface. Something like 30% of the glacier will be above the water level. All of that will go into the ocean as the glacier melts. This may not sound like much, but we are talking *cubic kilometers* of ice here. Tons of it.
Now the question is how much do they cancel out? Does the reduction from ice->water cancel out the addition from ice above the surface -> sea?
What you said about the South Pole is indeed right though. Much of the ice is kilometers thick on top of the antarctica continent. All of that would have a completely positive effect on the sea level.
By traveling faster through space, we travel slower through time. This scales so perfectly, ....
Perhaps somebody could answer this for me. I've heard of this theory before, and to me it makes a lot of sense. However, when measuring this, have scientists found that it does indeed scale correctly? I've heard of an experiment involving a plane containing an atomic clock that flew around for awhile, and proved this effect (afterwards the clock was slower than it should have been).
Have they been able to extrapolate from this, to prove that the velocities in each dimensions do scale on an 1:1 basis, inverted? It would be interesting if the equation was not 1:1, but something like:
Overall Velocity Constant = (Velocity in Space)^2 + (Velocity in Time)
Instead of the 1:1 equation of:
Overall Velocity Constant = (Velocity in Space) + (Velocity in Time)
Meaning if you speed up to 0.5 c you are not going 50% slower in time, but more like only 25% slower. I guess the implications would be that the space and time dimensions are not orthogonal but stetched in one way or the other?
I think the poster is referring to the different options available when you create a playlist.
I haven't used it really myself, but I know that you can do a lot with it. iTunes and the iPod keep track of the last time a song was played, and coupling that together with keying off of the song genre/artist/whatever, you could create the two shuffle patterns described.
Of course, this is for a playlist that you have to create. So you would have to give some more effort to it, than say selecting from a radio button.
That one side would have inifinite storage capacity!
That's sweet. Does the song info on the display actually correspond to what is playing on the iPod? (The Hook Me Up part in the picture.) I didn't know the dock connector could send that type of information.
:)
But, nice, that is exactly what I'm talking about.
Oh, and about taking your eyes off the road -- you know what I meant. With this unit you're taking your eyes off the road to look at a nice bright LCD display with only a few lines of text, and not the tiny screen on the iPod. There is a big difference. Well I guess you could say the iPod's screen is a decent size, but the tiny font is what makes it hard to see. (Plus it's black on white, instead of white on black)
One more thing off topic:
Cool, I actually got a response to a slashdot comment with information that could help me in real life
No it's more like:
You're driving down the interstate, and a song comes on that's extrememly loud, or your cell phone starts ringing, and you need to turn down the volume (yes you could pause for the cell phone, but what about the song?). Either way you're already distracted and not thinking about driving.
You reach for the iPod instinctively, woops, can't turn down the volume from that thing (remember, he's using the line out).
So you remember, oh yeah, have to work the volume from the stereo unit. So you reach up there, change the volume, and finally get back to what you were doing.
Yes, it's a nitpick. Yes, it's not that huge of a problem. But yes, it's just something that I wanted to point out that has bugged me before. I can easily see the situation above taking a couple of seconds, which is enough to warrant some thought.
Ever since I got my iPod, I've dreamt and drooled over the possibility of using it in my car. But I just have never thought up a good way to really integrate it, and I mean fully, like having an easy way to choose songs to play, hit play/pause, change the volume, etc, that is just as easy to use an in dash player that supports mp3's.
:)
Having it sit somewhere mounted is a good start, but you still would have to reach down there and twiddle the buttons. And in an big vehicle like an Explorer? That would get old, quick.
By the looks of the pictures, he is using the line out connector on the bottom. You can't change the volume that's coming out of that right? I mean not from the iPod, therefore you'd have to use the main stereo for that. So you would have two places to reach now, for different activities. You would have reach down to the iPod to change songs and pause, and reach to the stereo to change the volume. That little extra step of deciding where need to reach would be a huge burden when you're going down the interstate at 70mph.
If anybody has thought of a good way to integrate the iPod into a car, I want to know. Right now my setup is using the headphone jack to connect to the aux input of my stereo, and using the inline remote that came with it. I can at least do all functions from one place (the headphone jack can have it's volume adjusted), but I can't really charge it well, because then I'd have a connector sticking out of the bottom *and* top. What I would like is for the iPod to have a docking place like in the article, but still be able to do everything easily, from one place, without needing to look too much. Maybe I need a wireless remote? Maybe I'm asking too much.