Emulating a Soundblaster won't bypass Secure Audio Path AFAIK. You'd have to patch the Windows kernel to bypass it (which shouldn't be too hard for some people, if only they'd use their mad skillz for good).
(BTW, I wonder if a crypto-luddite is opposed to cryptography or secretly opposed to all technology...)
I doubt WiMax includes an adhoc mode, because WiMax is all about wireless ISPs. There won't be any WiMax-equipped notebooks anyway, since the antenna is too big. (One day notebooks may support 802.16e with mesh mode, but that stuff is vaporware.)
QuickTime (which is about 10 years old) is a media framework alá GStreamer. Core Image appears to be hardware-accelerated Photoshop-style image filters, and Core Video appears to just be those filters on video.
POWER4 and POWER5 are multi-core PowerPCs. Currently there are not any multi-core low-end PowerPCs because they simply cost more to make than the customers are willing to pay. But costs are going down all the time.
So, will it still use socket 478, and when do we see moboards with the new accompanying chipsets and DDR2?
No, it will still use socket 775, and the new chipsets will come out at the same time as the processor.
I'm a little leery of getting excited about having more juice squeezed out of the P4 line, and maybe it's because I'm not entirely clued into the extent of the benefits gained from dual-core P4s. Are they doing this just to gain time before they introduce a new architecture?
A dual-core P4 is cheaper than a dual Xeon. Or to look at it the other way, a dual-core P4 has more performance than an equally-priced single-core P4.
This is not an issue because you never remove the hard disk from its computer. When the computer becomes obsolete, you buy a new one (with new disks), and copy the data over.
For whatever reason (I'm not a video expert) many people prefer intraframe codecs for archival. As you probably guessed, Motion JPEG 2000 just treats each video frame as a still image and compresses it with JPEG 2000.
Dirac will give much better compression that JPEG 2000, but it also introduces the possibility of interframe artifacts.
If you have the right gateway, a SIP phone can call any regular phone. I don't see what an iSight has to do with it; these are screen phones, not video phones.
Speaking as a corporate America drone, this thing looks better than the phone I currently have on my desk. My phone has no screen at all, which makes it difficult to use any of the advanced features. One use that immediately comes to mind for a phone with a good screen is looking up people in my phonebook, although maybe it would be better to just do this on a desktop computer and have some way for the computer to dial the phone for you. Oh wait, did you say non-geek? Never mind.
WiFi seems orthogonal to this project -- WiFi is about not needing wires and this phone is about a different (better) user interface.
Er, not really. NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP was based on PostScript, but Apple ripped all that out when they built Quartz. Quartz Compositor is all bitmaps, while Quartz 2D is based on the PS/PDF imaging model, but when you're rendering to the screen it doesn't generate PS code or a PDF file.
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses (X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected ( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money ( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks ( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it (X) Users of email will not put up with it ( ) Microsoft will not put up with it ( ) The police will not put up with it ( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers ( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once (X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers ( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists ( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it ( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email ( ) Open relays in foreign countries ( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses ( ) Asshats ( ) Jurisdictional problems ( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes ( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money ( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP ( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack ( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email ( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes ( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches ( ) Extreme profitability of spam ( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft ( ) Technically illiterate politicians ( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers ( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves ( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering ( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever been shown practical ( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable ( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation ( ) Blacklists suck (X) Whitelists suck ( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored ( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud ( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks ( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually ( ) Sending email should be free ( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers? ( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses ( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem (X) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome ( ) I don't want the government reading my email ( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work. ( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it. ( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your house down!
Slashdot Mirror
Don't forget his crazy hack of putting a C compiler in a bootloader and compiling the Linux kernel at boot time.
Emulating a Soundblaster won't bypass Secure Audio Path AFAIK. You'd have to patch the Windows kernel to bypass it (which shouldn't be too hard for some people, if only they'd use their mad skillz for good).
(BTW, I wonder if a crypto-luddite is opposed to cryptography or secretly opposed to all technology...)
I thought "linksys" was the largest provider of free WiFi in the world...
Exactly. A small antenna would have so little gain that the performance would be terrible.
I doubt WiMax includes an adhoc mode, because WiMax is all about wireless ISPs. There won't be any WiMax-equipped notebooks anyway, since the antenna is too big. (One day notebooks may support 802.16e with mesh mode, but that stuff is vaporware.)
QuickTime (which is about 10 years old) is a media framework alá GStreamer. Core Image appears to be hardware-accelerated Photoshop-style image filters, and Core Video appears to just be those filters on video.
Too bad your paper confuses Quartz 2D and Quartz Compositor. (I don't blame you too much, since Apple marketing confuses them as well.)
Sounds like you haven't seen a WiMax radio, which is much larger than a cell phone. (People are talking about mobile WiMax, but it's vaporware.)
No, leakage is lower at lower voltage.
The feature sizes are 90 nm and the wafers are 300 mm in diameter.
POWER4 and POWER5 are multi-core PowerPCs. Currently there are not any multi-core low-end PowerPCs because they simply cost more to make than the customers are willing to pay. But costs are going down all the time.
So, will it still use socket 478, and when do we see moboards with the new accompanying chipsets and DDR2?
No, it will still use socket 775, and the new chipsets will come out at the same time as the processor.
I'm a little leery of getting excited about having more juice squeezed out of the P4 line, and maybe it's because I'm not entirely clued into the extent of the benefits gained from dual-core P4s. Are they doing this just to gain time before they introduce a new architecture?
A dual-core P4 is cheaper than a dual Xeon. Or to look at it the other way, a dual-core P4 has more performance than an equally-priced single-core P4.
I agree that the Opteron is the way to go.
This is not an issue because you never remove the hard disk from its computer. When the computer becomes obsolete, you buy a new one (with new disks), and copy the data over.
For whatever reason (I'm not a video expert) many people prefer intraframe codecs for archival. As you probably guessed, Motion JPEG 2000 just treats each video frame as a still image and compresses it with JPEG 2000.
Dirac will give much better compression that JPEG 2000, but it also introduces the possibility of interframe artifacts.
If you have the right gateway, a SIP phone can call any regular phone. I don't see what an iSight has to do with it; these are screen phones, not video phones.
The main reason for having separate phones and computers is so that you can call the help desk when your computer is down. :-)
Speaking as a corporate America drone, this thing looks better than the phone I currently have on my desk. My phone has no screen at all, which makes it difficult to use any of the advanced features. One use that immediately comes to mind for a phone with a good screen is looking up people in my phonebook, although maybe it would be better to just do this on a desktop computer and have some way for the computer to dial the phone for you. Oh wait, did you say non-geek? Never mind.
WiFi seems orthogonal to this project -- WiFi is about not needing wires and this phone is about a different (better) user interface.
A screen phone is not a video phone.
Er, not really. NeXTSTEP/OPENSTEP was based on PostScript, but Apple ripped all that out when they built Quartz. Quartz Compositor is all bitmaps, while Quartz 2D is based on the PS/PDF imaging model, but when you're rendering to the screen it doesn't generate PS code or a PDF file.
I think this means there is still a market for a UMD disk burner.
But Sony still won't sell one.
And after the TCG accumulates enough bad PR, I guess they'll change the name again...
I think a cheap color Mac -- in 1987 -- would have simply been too expensive for the home/education market even if Apple sold it at cost.
But Apple could have had a migration path from the Apple ][ to the Mac; if only they had shipped the Apple ][ PDS card years earlier...
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative ( ) market-based ( ) vigilante
approach to fighting spam. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work. (One or more of the following may apply to your particular idea, and it may have other flaws which used to vary from state to state before a bad federal law was passed.)
( ) Spammers can easily use it to harvest email addresses
(X) Mailing lists and other legitimate email uses would be affected
( ) No one will be able to find the guy or collect the money
( ) It is defenseless against brute force attacks
( ) It will stop spam for two weeks and then we'll be stuck with it
(X) Users of email will not put up with it
( ) Microsoft will not put up with it
( ) The police will not put up with it
( ) Requires too much cooperation from spammers
( ) Requires immediate total cooperation from everybody at once
(X) Many email users cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
( ) Spammers don't care about invalid addresses in their lists
( ) Anyone could anonymously destroy anyone else's career or business
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
( ) Laws expressly prohibiting it
( ) Lack of centrally controlling authority for email
( ) Open relays in foreign countries
( ) Ease of searching tiny alphanumeric address space of all email addresses
( ) Asshats
( ) Jurisdictional problems
( ) Unpopularity of weird new taxes
( ) Public reluctance to accept weird new forms of money
( ) Huge existing software investment in SMTP
( ) Susceptibility of protocols other than SMTP to attack
( ) Willingness of users to install OS patches received by email
( ) Armies of worm riddled broadband-connected Windows boxes
( ) Eternal arms race involved in all filtering approaches
( ) Extreme profitability of spam
( ) Joe jobs and/or identity theft
( ) Technically illiterate politicians
( ) Extreme stupidity on the part of people who do business with spammers
( ) Dishonesty on the part of spammers themselves
( ) Bandwidth costs that are unaffected by client filtering
( ) Outlook
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
( ) Any scheme based on opt-out is unacceptable
( ) SMTP headers should not be the subject of legislation
( ) Blacklists suck
(X) Whitelists suck
( ) We should be able to talk about Viagra without being censored
( ) Countermeasures should not involve wire fraud or credit card fraud
( ) Countermeasures should not involve sabotage of public networks
( ) Countermeasures must work if phased in gradually
( ) Sending email should be free
( ) Why should we have to trust you and your servers?
( ) Incompatiblity with open source or open source licenses
( ) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(X) Temporary/one-time email addresses are cumbersome
( ) I don't want the government reading my email
( ) Killing them that way is not slow and painful enough
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
( ) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
(From http://www.craphound.com/spamsolutions.txt)
For example, consider the tale of the Windows 2000 EAL4 evaluation.
There's no problem because TI engineers can steal whatever cars they want...