He's probably referring to TKIP and thinking it is the only method available for WPA2.
TKIP has a few vulnerabilities (as detailed here and elsewhere) but as noted in the Wikipedia entry, none of them retrieved the key, and relied on short packets with mostly known content, and were not able to inject many packets (3-7), and the packets they could inject were fairly short (28 bytes, then 596 in a later attack).
While I prefer 1 and 10Gbit wired Ethernet, I have no problem with WPA2-Personal and even WPA is fine for low risk activities, although I have it disabled on all my access points.
(off topic, where in blazes did they hide the setting to change your signature? Damn Dice and their crappy playing around with/. *grumbles*)
Many times I have already read the article on another site and some to slashdot to read the comments.
They don't provide any news that I haven't heard anywhere else. I can't remember a time... ever I think.
There are precious few other sites on the net with comment sections worth reading, and it would be a damn shame to lose slashdot,but if they remove classic as a viewing option, I don't know that I will stick around, but I know for sure I will be around a lot less.
Arstechnica has already been getting a lot more of my time lately, mostly for it's much more timely stories and original content.
But the sentiment is the same, the BETA site stinks, and near unusable. Keep the classic interface as an option, or I imagine a good number of their viewers will find a new news source.
The signal isn't changing. HDMI merely doesn't transmit extra HDMI only stuff the DVI end wouldn't understand. HDMI's default pixel format is RGB, which is sent across the cable in exactly the same way as DVI. When transmitting RGB data, there is no difference between them. TMDS is the same for both.
Maybe it's like on the internet... everything talks IP, but says some people still run ancient email clients that only speak POP3, but the server supports POP3, IMAP, Exchange, etc. All of those formats are still running over IP, but when the POP3 client connects to the server, the server negotiates a POP3 connection and does its business.
HDMI uses the same signals to transmit extra stuff to HDMI devices, but that doesn't change the signal. The signal is what defines electrical compatibility. Since HDMI uses RGB as its native/default pixel format, sent across the dame D0/D1/D2 data links as DVI, in the same TMDS signal, there is no difference. When it discovers an HDMI device at the other end, it turns on some extra stuff, the existing stuff doesn't change.
RGB data between HDMI devices is exchanged exactly the same as between HDMI and DVI. Wikipedia says HDMI packetizes everything, including the video data, but that is not how it's defined in the actual standard, and I'll take the standard's word over Wikipedia.
I hope that clears things up a bit. And as to your question, the HDMI specification dictates that all HDMI devices power up assuming the other end is DVI until being told it is HDMI, and even then, it still has to negotiate which HDMI version it supports to turn on those additional features. It's stated there in Section C2 that I pasted above.
So really, since they are so similar, you could almost think of DVI as HDMI.5 or something, since it has no audio, no HDCP, no YCbCr colorspace. HDMI 1.3 added ethernet over HDMI, but that didn't change the signal any, just added a feature over the existing signal, and it has to be negotiated between the devices. What they do share, RGB video, is exactly the same, there is no "DVI RGB", just RGB without the extra HDMI stuff like audio, ethernet, etc.
The practice of powering up in the least capable mode is common all over electronics, and software. PCI devices come in 3.3v, 5v, and universal which supports both. Except for the voltage, it is electrically compatible with itself, but the slots are keyed to prevent damage. Ethernet is another example, all ethernet devices power up in 10Base-T mode and negotiate up to the highest level both sides mutually support. 10Base-T ethernet uses CSMA/CD on the wire, while 1000Base-T forbids it, but 1000Base-T devices still support it when talking to 10Base-T.
In the network world, one would say HDMI and DVI share the same PHY, just HDMI adds lots more commands over it.
DVI only knows about DVI, because the (original) spec is much older. HDMI came afterwards, and purposefully sharing the same PHY, mandated DVI compatibility.
Any DVI devices that support extra HDMI features are doing so either according to a newer spec, or out of DVI's spec, but still using the same TMDS signal. That underlying signal never changes, during any negotiations, except to higher speeds in higher HDMI specs. The only thing that ever changes is what is transmitted over it.
As to what AMD has done... I really don't understand it. It can't really be a profit thing, since those adapters are usually included free with the card. But still, this is the first I've heard of any DVI devices doing audio out the DVI port. I haven't read the entire latest DVI standards, but I doubt it was added there, since the last update according to Wikipedia was in '01, and the working group's domain has a search parking page on it.
Section 5.1.1 Link Architecture
"As shown in Figure 5-1, an HDMI link includes three TMDS Data channels and a single TMDS Clock channel. The TMDS Clock channel constantly runs at a rate proportional to the pixel rate of the transmitted video. During every cycle of the TMDS Clock channel, each of the three TMDS data channels transmits a 10-bit character. This 10-bit word is encoded using one of several different coding techniques.
The input stream to the Source’s encoding logic will contain video pixel, packet and control data. The packet data consists of audio and auxiliary data and associated error correction codes.
These data items are processed in a variety of ways and are presented to the TMDS encoder as either 2 bits of control data, 4 bits of packet data or 8 bits of video data per TMDS channel. The Source encodes one of these data types or encodes a Guard Band character on any given clockcycle."
The word packet is only used when describing packet and control data. Video data is transmitted as pixel data, with each color component going through a separate data link, remarkably like DVI...
Section 6.5 specifies how it draws pixels in RGB mode, which is the only mode HDMI and DVI share, and strangely enough they put the RGB pixels on the same data links as DVI does, in the same TMDS format.
Section 8.3.3 is titled "DVI/HDMI Device Discrimination" and specifies that any device that does not identify itself as an HDMI device in its EDID will be treated as a DVI device. Meaning it can't use all the extra features of HDMI.
Appendix C "Compatibility With DVI":
C.1 Requirement for DVI Compatibility All HDMI Sources shall be compatible with DVI 1.0 compliant sink devices (i.e. “monitors” or “displays”) through the use of a
passive cable converter. Likewise, all HDMI Sinks shall be compatible with DVI 1.0 compliant sources (i.e. “systems” or “hosts”) through the use of a similar
cable converter.
When communicating with a DVI device, an HDMI device shall operate according to the DVI 1.0 specification, "[...continues]
C.2 HDMI Source Requirements
When communicating with a DVI sink device, an HDMI Source shall operate in a mode compatible with that device. This requires that the Source operate under the following limitations:
Video pixel encoding shall be RGB.
No Video Guard Bands shall be used.
No Data Islands shall be transmitted.
An HDMI Source may transmit Video Data Periods without Guard Bands only when communicating to a DVI sink device or during the process of determining if the sink device is HDMI capable. An HDMI Source, upon power-up, reset or detection of a new sink device, shall assume that the sink device operates under DVI 1.0 limitations. An HDMI Source shall determine if the sink device is an HDMI Sink by following the rule(s) described in Section 8.3.3. Upon detection of an HDMI
Sink, the HDMI Source shall follow all of the HDMI Source-related requirements specified in this document.
All electrical and physical specifications in Section 4 shall be followed by the HDMI Source even when communicating with a DVI sink device.
C.3 HDMI Sink Requirements
When connected to a DVI source device, an HDMI Sink shall operate as a DVI 1.0 compliant sink with the exceptions outlined in Section C.1 above. A DVI source device will always be restricted in the following ways:
Only RGB pixel encoding is used.
There is no Guard Band on the Video Data Period.
There are no Data Islands transmitted.
An HDMI Sink, upon power-up, reset or detection of a new source device, shall assume that the source device is limited to the above behavior. Upon
the detection of an indicati
You really don't like to be wrong, do you?
DVI-D and HDMI both use Transition-Minimized Differential Signalling as their electrical protocol. Past that, HDMI added HDCP to protect the [MP|RI]AA's "valuable" content. After the HDMI specification was published and became common on PCs, many/most PC graphics chips added HDCP capability to their DVI-D implementations, so that with a passive adapter that only changes which pins go where, everything works. As far as what is transmitted on those pins, it is the same.
From Wikipedia's article on HDMI "Because HDMI is electrically compatible with the CEA-861 signals used by digital visual interface (DVI), no signal conversion is necessary, nor is there a loss of video quality when a DVI-to-HDMI adapter is used."
Citing the HDMI 1.3a specification at http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/specification.aspx (they make you sign up to download it, but it's free)
Changing the pins around does not make it electrically incompatible, that's what is called physical incompatibility, and that's what passive adapters do.
There really isn't any more proof to offer than the HDMI specification itself, unless you think that is wrong...
That was kind of why I was asking him what his role would be in the hypothetical collective...
He's probably the type that goes to potlucks without bringing food too heh
Paying for an OS that fixes what the carrier and Google should have gotten right in the first place isn't something that I view as reasonable.
Wow. I suppose the rest of us are supposed to be glad you are a productive member of our commune? What is your role in the collective?
Paying other people to do work that we cannot or will not do ourselves is a tenant of a functional society. I don't know, or don't care to be a part of the society you picture yourself a member of.
New? Sub 15k UID man. Yea, lots of lower, but it's low enough. My name was chopped because I created my account back when they used to allow longer user names. Was supposed to read "by the order of His Majesty" heh Yea... I was 17 or something... highschool... craziness
Anyway, I wasn't trolling, or attacking, declaring anyone wrong, or running away. I can defend my side all day long if I feel like it, but I don't at this particular moment in time. I said I wasn't going to, and I won't.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
Religion is explicitly exempted from DSM diagnostics. If not for the explicit exemptions for religion, it would fit the definition of a number of mental illnesses.
Homosexuality was in the DSM II as well until it was removed in the DSM III published as late as 1973. The DSM is trying to define "abnormal."
Since nearly the entire planet believes in something (black, white or yellow), it wouldn't make much sense to go diagnosing the entire planet with a mental illness, despite how the other part might feel about it.
FWIW, I consider myself fairly "fundamental" ideologically, but not behaviorally. I prefer to share my faith through much less aggressive/abrasive/offensive methods. I haven't ever spoken to either of my neighbors directly next to me, and only in passing to the people across the street, and never about religion. The people at work all known I am a Christian, but I haven't dropped any pamphlets or bibles off, and I'm not leaving any posters on bulletin boards.
As you said, both sides have their nuts.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
We can separate religion from God however, since religion is merely the practice of one's own belief system. Once we have an agreed definition, we can proceed with the discussion. Atheists believe their is no God. Believers believe there is (monotheists n=1, polytheists n=>1) at least one God.
Not all believers are religious, and not all atheists are claimed to be religious, or at least I am not claiming them all to be. Just as some believers believe in the existence of a higher power, but do not actively participate in any organized religion or formal belief system, so too can an atheist. In fact, I would be willing to bet, nearly all people who have made the personal choice that there is no God, made no great effort to spread that message.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
If believing that God exists in the absence of evidence, and inability to prove his/her/its existence, and to further set up institutions to spread that message is religion, then logically the inverse is as well.
By that I am referring only to those atheists who are out vocally proselytizing their insistence that there is absolutely no God. If we define religion as belief system, then the simple belief that God does not exist would not qualify. But trying to actively spread that message, and get others to further spread it for your, does, very much, qualify in every respect as a religion despite any of their complaints or arguments to the contrary.
As in everything, it all comes down to context and definition. You can't have a proper argument or discussion without first agreeing or understanding the underlying parameters.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
In this particular debate (a)theists are arguing there is no God, and (b)elievers are arguing there is a God. The burden of proof is on each interested party, not solely on (a) or (b). When we consider the agnostics, they are the neutral, undecided third party.
I hesitate to call them disinterested in the (a) (b) decision, in the way that some of them may pay varying amounts of attention to various discussions in the debate, but they are most likely un-invested.
This isn't the scientific community, and it isn't even real philosophy that gets slung around daytime/primetime television or bestseller book lists on either side of the argument. This is an emotional position on both sides. That is why the (b)elievers are calling the (a)theists out for "not having a religion." While it is true that many atheist are happy to have decided that there is no God and live their lives in quiet scientific sublimity, the atheists stirring the pot are ruining your good name!
The scientific hypothesis is always if it can't be proven or disproven, it's a theory - a theory being an unproven hypothesis. That seems to be as fitting a definition as any for a religion.
As a believer, I have never categorically demanded that anyone accept that there is a Creator, only that I believe there is one, and that I believe that I have witnessed his work in my life. The atheists are coming from the side of trying to prove the unprovable. This is different that what the believers should be doing in sharing their faith/beliefs, and not forcing it down everyone's throats.
In that context, I don't see how I have anything at all to prove, because I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm making a statement of belief.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
We can look at the etymology to arrive at the "correct" answer, no "atheist union" needed.
Theism is defined, briefly, as "belief in the existence of a god or gods." When we prepend the privative "a" prefix to our root word "theism" to create "atheism" we create a new word meaning the opposite of the original word. Correspondingly, similar transformations are made with appropriate prefixes to create monotheism (belief that there is only one God), polytheism (belief that there are more than one god/s), and pantheism (belief in a non-personal, all-encompassing, universal entity, among others.
All of these are distinct from what many people seem to think of themselves as: agnostic. Agnosticism is the genuine uncertainty of the existence of a higher power, and/or belief that it can never be known. When a person has already decided that there is no God, they are atheist, by definition. Since they cannot prove there is no God, any more than a believer can prove there is a God, this is what causes so much friction between the two groups. Neither side can prove either position, and engages in endless mudslinging or worse - or better, or nothing. I hope I haven't soiled anything...
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
In any debate, it is always advised to give the opposing side as little leverage against you as possible. You mention understanding the other side, this is excellent debate strategy. But then you inject unnecessary emotion into the first sentence of your last line, and the last sentence was complete vitriol.
I am on the other side of this argument, but I haven't, and won't mention anything about it in this post. I'm only suggesting that reasonable debate or discussion goes much further if you aren't contributing to the flames.
Stand up, be blameless, don't give them(us,me) anything to attack.
Religious nutjob
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
Then by definition you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic.
Atheism on wikipedia
Etiologically, atheism's root word, theism, means belief in a higher power. When we prepend the privative "a" prefix to theism to form atheism we negate the original meaning of belief in a higher power, to belief in no higher power (roughly).
Agnostics and agnosticism are terms much less frequently encountered in public conversation. This surprises me, because I get the feeling that most people who aren't believers are not anti-believers, and are actually agnostic. This is probably perpetuated by our mainstream media trying to use smallest, simplest lexicon/vocabulary possible instead of ever introducing a word that someone might not know and giving them a reason or opportunity to use a dictionary or ask another human being what it means.
meh... it sells more commercials I guess...
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
RMS sits around thinking about his non-copyright(copy-left), but that's ok, and we like him for that =)
As long as he does it over there... heh
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
atheist [reference.com]: [ey-thee-ist] noun - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1565–75;
Related forms
antiatheist, noun, adjective
proatheist, noun, adjective
Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.
Just as believers are making a decision based on a belief (there is a God), atheists are also making a decision based on a belief of their own: that there is not a God. If believers decision one direction is considered a religion based on the criteria of making a decision based on faith, or lack of provable, testable, scientific evidence, then the same can be said of atheists.
It is the agnostics who are ambivalent towards the existence of any higher power/creator and don't bother themselves which such philosophies. This is what I believe you may have been referring to in your message above, and indeed is often confused with atheism, as mentioned in the dictionary.com article above.
Get your terminology right before you start rejecting conclusions and labeling premises as wrong.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
And, the agnostics, the ones without the beliefs, do not have a religion, no. The atheists do.
They have decided (i.e. made a decision that they cannot prove) that there is no God/higher power. Some of these people are more vocal about it than others, some are more quiet and reserved. That is each of their's right, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else', and I don't begrudge them that.
My point was and is, if taking one side of a decision qualifies as a religion, then the reverse does so as well. Very basic logic. They fact that you don't want to accept it, don't change it.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
I didn't say lack of belief, I said making a decision based on a lack of measurable/verifiable evidence. That is, again, not the same thing.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
atheist: [ey-thee-ist] noun - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1565–75;
Related forms
antiatheist, noun, adjective
proatheist, noun, adjective
Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.
Just as believers are making a decision based on a belief (there is a God), atheists are also making a decision based on a belief of their own: that there is not a God. If believers decision one direction is considered a religion based on the criteria of making a decision based on faith, or lack of provable, testable, scientific evidence, then the same can be said of atheists.
It is the agnostics who are ambivalent towards the existence of any higher power/creator and don't bother themselves which such philosophies. This is what I believe you may have been referring to in your message above, and indeed is often confused with atheism, as mentioned in the dictionary.com article above.
All good. Everyone is on this rock to find their own way in life, or to help their fellow man find theirs... help, not force, or coerce mind you.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est "knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
Slashdot Mirror
He's probably referring to TKIP and thinking it is the only method available for WPA2.
/. *grumbles*)
TKIP has a few vulnerabilities (as detailed here and elsewhere) but as noted in the Wikipedia entry, none of them retrieved the key, and relied on short packets with mostly known content, and were not able to inject many packets (3-7), and the packets they could inject were fairly short (28 bytes, then 596 in a later attack).
None of that sounds at all like WEP's 56bit worthlessness.
While I prefer 1 and 10Gbit wired Ethernet, I have no problem with WPA2-Personal and even WPA is fine for low risk activities, although I have it disabled on all my access points.
(off topic, where in blazes did they hide the setting to change your signature? Damn Dice and their crappy playing around with
Exactly!
Many times I have already read the article on another site and some to slashdot to read the comments.
They don't provide any news that I haven't heard anywhere else. I can't remember a time... ever I think.
There are precious few other sites on the net with comment sections worth reading, and it would be a damn shame to lose slashdot,but if they remove classic as a viewing option, I don't know that I will stick around, but I know for sure I will be around a lot less.
Arstechnica has already been getting a lot more of my time lately, mostly for it's much more timely stories and original content.
They like to think they are special I guess...
But the sentiment is the same, the BETA site stinks, and near unusable. Keep the classic interface as an option, or I imagine a good number of their viewers will find a new news source.
The signal isn't changing. HDMI merely doesn't transmit extra HDMI only stuff the DVI end wouldn't understand. HDMI's default pixel format is RGB, which is sent across the cable in exactly the same way as DVI. When transmitting RGB data, there is no difference between them. TMDS is the same for both.
.5 or something, since it has no audio, no HDCP, no YCbCr colorspace. HDMI 1.3 added ethernet over HDMI, but that didn't change the signal any, just added a feature over the existing signal, and it has to be negotiated between the devices. What they do share, RGB video, is exactly the same, there is no "DVI RGB", just RGB without the extra HDMI stuff like audio, ethernet, etc.
Maybe it's like on the internet... everything talks IP, but says some people still run ancient email clients that only speak POP3, but the server supports POP3, IMAP, Exchange, etc. All of those formats are still running over IP, but when the POP3 client connects to the server, the server negotiates a POP3 connection and does its business.
HDMI uses the same signals to transmit extra stuff to HDMI devices, but that doesn't change the signal. The signal is what defines electrical compatibility. Since HDMI uses RGB as its native/default pixel format, sent across the dame D0/D1/D2 data links as DVI, in the same TMDS signal, there is no difference. When it discovers an HDMI device at the other end, it turns on some extra stuff, the existing stuff doesn't change.
RGB data between HDMI devices is exchanged exactly the same as between HDMI and DVI. Wikipedia says HDMI packetizes everything, including the video data, but that is not how it's defined in the actual standard, and I'll take the standard's word over Wikipedia.
I hope that clears things up a bit. And as to your question, the HDMI specification dictates that all HDMI devices power up assuming the other end is DVI until being told it is HDMI, and even then, it still has to negotiate which HDMI version it supports to turn on those additional features. It's stated there in Section C2 that I pasted above.
So really, since they are so similar, you could almost think of DVI as HDMI
The practice of powering up in the least capable mode is common all over electronics, and software. PCI devices come in 3.3v, 5v, and universal which supports both. Except for the voltage, it is electrically compatible with itself, but the slots are keyed to prevent damage. Ethernet is another example, all ethernet devices power up in 10Base-T mode and negotiate up to the highest level both sides mutually support. 10Base-T ethernet uses CSMA/CD on the wire, while 1000Base-T forbids it, but 1000Base-T devices still support it when talking to 10Base-T.
In the network world, one would say HDMI and DVI share the same PHY, just HDMI adds lots more commands over it.
DVI only knows about DVI, because the (original) spec is much older. HDMI came afterwards, and purposefully sharing the same PHY, mandated DVI compatibility. Any DVI devices that support extra HDMI features are doing so either according to a newer spec, or out of DVI's spec, but still using the same TMDS signal. That underlying signal never changes, during any negotiations, except to higher speeds in higher HDMI specs. The only thing that ever changes is what is transmitted over it.
As to what AMD has done... I really don't understand it. It can't really be a profit thing, since those adapters are usually included free with the card. But still, this is the first I've heard of any DVI devices doing audio out the DVI port. I haven't read the entire latest DVI standards, but I doubt it was added there, since the last update according to Wikipedia was in '01, and the working group's domain has a search parking page on it.
I found a copy of the HDMI spec someone posted at Purdue: https://engineering.purdue.edu/ece477/Webs/S12-Grp10/Datasheets/CEC_HDMI_Specification.pdf
:
Section 5.1.1 Link Architecture
"As shown in Figure 5-1, an HDMI link includes three TMDS Data channels and a single TMDS Clock channel. The TMDS Clock channel constantly runs at a rate proportional to the pixel rate of the transmitted video. During every cycle of the TMDS Clock channel, each of the three TMDS data channels transmits a 10-bit character. This 10-bit word is encoded using one of several different coding techniques.
The input stream to the Source’s encoding logic will contain video pixel, packet and control data. The packet data consists of audio and auxiliary data and associated error correction codes.
These data items are processed in a variety of ways and are presented to the TMDS encoder as either 2 bits of control data, 4 bits of packet data or 8 bits of video data per TMDS channel. The Source encodes one of these data types or encodes a Guard Band character on any given clockcycle."
The word packet is only used when describing packet and control data. Video data is transmitted as pixel data, with each color component going through a separate data link, remarkably like DVI...
Section 6.5 specifies how it draws pixels in RGB mode, which is the only mode HDMI and DVI share, and strangely enough they put the RGB pixels on the same data links as DVI does, in the same TMDS format.
Section 8.3.3 is titled "DVI/HDMI Device Discrimination" and specifies that any device that does not identify itself as an HDMI device in its EDID will be treated as a DVI device. Meaning it can't use all the extra features of HDMI.
Appendix C "Compatibility With DVI"
C.1 Requirement for DVI Compatibility All HDMI Sources shall be compatible with DVI 1.0 compliant sink devices (i.e. “monitors” or “displays”) through the use of a passive cable converter. Likewise, all HDMI Sinks shall be compatible with DVI 1.0 compliant sources (i.e. “systems” or “hosts”) through the use of a similar cable converter.
When communicating with a DVI device, an HDMI device shall operate according to the DVI 1.0 specification, "[...continues]
C.2 HDMI Source Requirements
When communicating with a DVI sink device, an HDMI Source shall operate in a mode compatible with that device. This requires that the Source operate under the following limitations:
Video pixel encoding shall be RGB.
No Video Guard Bands shall be used.
No Data Islands shall be transmitted.
An HDMI Source may transmit Video Data Periods without Guard Bands only when communicating to a DVI sink device or during the process of determining if the sink device is HDMI capable. An HDMI Source, upon power-up, reset or detection of a new sink device, shall assume that the sink device operates under DVI 1.0 limitations. An HDMI Source shall determine if the sink device is an HDMI Sink by following the rule(s) described in Section 8.3.3. Upon detection of an HDMI Sink, the HDMI Source shall follow all of the HDMI Source-related requirements specified in this document.
All electrical and physical specifications in Section 4 shall be followed by the HDMI Source even when communicating with a DVI sink device.
C.3 HDMI Sink Requirements
When connected to a DVI source device, an HDMI Sink shall operate as a DVI 1.0 compliant sink with the exceptions outlined in Section C.1 above. A DVI source device will always be restricted in the following ways: Only RGB pixel encoding is used. There is no Guard Band on the Video Data Period. There are no Data Islands transmitted. An HDMI Sink, upon power-up, reset or detection of a new source device, shall assume that the source device is limited to the above behavior. Upon the detection of an indicati
You really don't like to be wrong, do you?
DVI-D and HDMI both use Transition-Minimized Differential Signalling as their electrical protocol. Past that, HDMI added HDCP to protect the [MP|RI]AA's "valuable" content. After the HDMI specification was published and became common on PCs, many/most PC graphics chips added HDCP capability to their DVI-D implementations, so that with a passive adapter that only changes which pins go where, everything works. As far as what is transmitted on those pins, it is the same.
From Wikipedia's article on HDMI "Because HDMI is electrically compatible with the CEA-861 signals used by digital visual interface (DVI), no signal conversion is necessary, nor is there a loss of video quality when a DVI-to-HDMI adapter is used." Citing the HDMI 1.3a specification at http://www.hdmi.org/manufacturer/specification.aspx (they make you sign up to download it, but it's free)
Changing the pins around does not make it electrically incompatible, that's what is called physical incompatibility, and that's what passive adapters do.
There really isn't any more proof to offer than the HDMI specification itself, unless you think that is wrong...
That was kind of why I was asking him what his role would be in the hypothetical collective...
He's probably the type that goes to potlucks without bringing food too heh
Paying for an OS that fixes what the carrier and Google should have gotten right in the first place isn't something that I view as reasonable.
Wow. I suppose the rest of us are supposed to be glad you are a productive member of our commune? What is your role in the collective?
Paying other people to do work that we cannot or will not do ourselves is a tenant of a functional society. I don't know, or don't care to be a part of the society you picture yourself a member of.
And then foreclosing on her house?
New? Sub 15k UID man. Yea, lots of lower, but it's low enough. My name was chopped because I created my account back when they used to allow longer user names. Was supposed to read "by the order of His Majesty" heh Yea... I was 17 or something... highschool... craziness
Anyway, I wasn't trolling, or attacking, declaring anyone wrong, or running away. I can defend my side all day long if I feel like it, but I don't at this particular moment in time. I said I wasn't going to, and I won't.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
Religion is explicitly exempted from DSM diagnostics. If not for the explicit exemptions for religion, it would fit the definition of a number of mental illnesses.
Homosexuality was in the DSM II as well until it was removed in the DSM III published as late as 1973. The DSM is trying to define "abnormal."
Since nearly the entire planet believes in something (black, white or yellow), it wouldn't make much sense to go diagnosing the entire planet with a mental illness, despite how the other part might feel about it.
FWIW, I consider myself fairly "fundamental" ideologically, but not behaviorally. I prefer to share my faith through much less aggressive/abrasive/offensive methods. I haven't ever spoken to either of my neighbors directly next to me, and only in passing to the people across the street, and never about religion. The people at work all known I am a Christian, but I haven't dropped any pamphlets or bibles off, and I'm not leaving any posters on bulletin boards.
As you said, both sides have their nuts.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
We can separate religion from God however, since religion is merely the practice of one's own belief system. Once we have an agreed definition, we can proceed with the discussion. Atheists believe their is no God. Believers believe there is (monotheists n=1, polytheists n=>1) at least one God.
Not all believers are religious, and not all atheists are claimed to be religious, or at least I am not claiming them all to be. Just as some believers believe in the existence of a higher power, but do not actively participate in any organized religion or formal belief system, so too can an atheist. In fact, I would be willing to bet, nearly all people who have made the personal choice that there is no God, made no great effort to spread that message.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
If believing that God exists in the absence of evidence, and inability to prove his/her/its existence, and to further set up institutions to spread that message is religion, then logically the inverse is as well.
By that I am referring only to those atheists who are out vocally proselytizing their insistence that there is absolutely no God. If we define religion as belief system, then the simple belief that God does not exist would not qualify. But trying to actively spread that message, and get others to further spread it for your, does, very much, qualify in every respect as a religion despite any of their complaints or arguments to the contrary.
As in everything, it all comes down to context and definition. You can't have a proper argument or discussion without first agreeing or understanding the underlying parameters.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
In this particular debate (a)theists are arguing there is no God, and (b)elievers are arguing there is a God. The burden of proof is on each interested party, not solely on (a) or (b). When we consider the agnostics, they are the neutral, undecided third party.
I hesitate to call them disinterested in the (a) (b) decision, in the way that some of them may pay varying amounts of attention to various discussions in the debate, but they are most likely un-invested.
This isn't the scientific community, and it isn't even real philosophy that gets slung around daytime/primetime television or bestseller book lists on either side of the argument. This is an emotional position on both sides. That is why the (b)elievers are calling the (a)theists out for "not having a religion." While it is true that many atheist are happy to have decided that there is no God and live their lives in quiet scientific sublimity, the atheists stirring the pot are ruining your good name!
The scientific hypothesis is always if it can't be proven or disproven, it's a theory - a theory being an unproven hypothesis. That seems to be as fitting a definition as any for a religion.
As a believer, I have never categorically demanded that anyone accept that there is a Creator, only that I believe there is one, and that I believe that I have witnessed his work in my life. The atheists are coming from the side of trying to prove the unprovable. This is different that what the believers should be doing in sharing their faith/beliefs, and not forcing it down everyone's throats.
In that context, I don't see how I have anything at all to prove, because I'm not trying to prove anything. I'm making a statement of belief.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
Yes, perhaps I was defining my set overly broadly. I am sure there are agnostics in that position though.
Of course it's also long been said that there are no atheists in foxholes... as a soldier and combat vet, I can't disprove that statement heh
I thought this was interesting: Agnosticism: The Basis for Atheism
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
We can look at the etymology to arrive at the "correct" answer, no "atheist union" needed.
Theism is defined, briefly, as "belief in the existence of a god or gods." When we prepend the privative "a" prefix to our root word "theism" to create "atheism" we create a new word meaning the opposite of the original word. Correspondingly, similar transformations are made with appropriate prefixes to create monotheism (belief that there is only one God), polytheism (belief that there are more than one god/s), and pantheism (belief in a non-personal, all-encompassing, universal entity, among others.
All of these are distinct from what many people seem to think of themselves as: agnostic. Agnosticism is the genuine uncertainty of the existence of a higher power, and/or belief that it can never be known. When a person has already decided that there is no God, they are atheist, by definition. Since they cannot prove there is no God, any more than a believer can prove there is a God, this is what causes so much friction between the two groups. Neither side can prove either position, and engages in endless mudslinging or worse - or better, or nothing. I hope I haven't soiled anything...
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
In any debate, it is always advised to give the opposing side as little leverage against you as possible. You mention understanding the other side, this is excellent debate strategy. But then you inject unnecessary emotion into the first sentence of your last line, and the last sentence was complete vitriol.
I am on the other side of this argument, but I haven't, and won't mention anything about it in this post. I'm only suggesting that reasonable debate or discussion goes much further if you aren't contributing to the flames.
Stand up, be blameless, don't give them(us,me) anything to attack.
Religious nutjob
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
Cogito, ergo sum ?
Existential! heh =)
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
Then by definition you are not an atheist, you are an agnostic.
Atheism on wikipedia
Etiologically, atheism's root word, theism, means belief in a higher power. When we prepend the privative "a" prefix to theism to form atheism we negate the original meaning of belief in a higher power, to belief in no higher power (roughly).
Agnostics and agnosticism are terms much less frequently encountered in public conversation. This surprises me, because I get the feeling that most people who aren't believers are not anti-believers, and are actually agnostic. This is probably perpetuated by our mainstream media trying to use smallest, simplest lexicon/vocabulary possible instead of ever introducing a word that someone might not know and giving them a reason or opportunity to use a dictionary or ask another human being what it means.
meh... it sells more commercials I guess...
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
RMS sits around thinking about his non-copyright(copy-left), but that's ok, and we like him for that =)
As long as he does it over there... heh
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
atheist = "there is no god"
agnostic = "there may or may not be a god, and I don't care"
believer = "there is a God"
atheist = -
agnostic = null
believer = +
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
atheist [reference.com]: [ey-thee-ist] noun - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1565–75;
Related forms
antiatheist, noun, adjective
proatheist, noun, adjective
Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.
Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.
Just as believers are making a decision based on a belief (there is a God), atheists are also making a decision based on a belief of their own: that there is not a God. If believers decision one direction is considered a religion based on the criteria of making a decision based on faith, or lack of provable, testable, scientific evidence, then the same can be said of atheists.
It is the agnostics who are ambivalent towards the existence of any higher power/creator and don't bother themselves which such philosophies. This is what I believe you may have been referring to in your message above, and indeed is often confused with atheism, as mentioned in the dictionary.com article above.
Get your terminology right before you start rejecting conclusions and labeling premises as wrong.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
And, the agnostics, the ones without the beliefs, do not have a religion, no.
The atheists do.
They have decided (i.e. made a decision that they cannot prove) that there is no God/higher power.
Some of these people are more vocal about it than others, some are more quiet and reserved. That is each of their's right, so long as they don't infringe on anyone else', and I don't begrudge them that.
My point was and is, if taking one side of a decision qualifies as a religion, then the reverse does so as well. Very basic logic. They fact that you don't want to accept it, don't change it.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
I didn't say lack of belief, I said making a decision based on a lack of measurable/verifiable evidence . That is, again, not the same thing.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon
atheist: [ey-thee-ist] noun - a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Origin: 1565–75;
Related forms
antiatheist, noun, adjective
proatheist, noun, adjective
Can be confused: 1. agnostic, atheist (see synonym study at the current entry) ; 2. atheist, theist, deist.
Synonyms
Atheist, agnostic, infidel, skeptic refer to persons not inclined toward religious belief or a particular form of religious belief. An atheist is one who denies the existence of a deity or of divine beings. An agnostic is one who believes it impossible to know anything about God or about the creation of the universe and refrains from commitment to any religious doctrine. Infidel means an unbeliever, especially a nonbeliever in Islam or Christianity. A skeptic doubts and is critical of all accepted doctrines and creeds.
Dictionary.com Unabridged
Based on the Random House Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2013.
Just as believers are making a decision based on a belief (there is a God), atheists are also making a decision based on a belief of their own: that there is not a God. If believers decision one direction is considered a religion based on the criteria of making a decision based on faith, or lack of provable, testable, scientific evidence, then the same can be said of atheists.
It is the agnostics who are ambivalent towards the existence of any higher power/creator and don't bother themselves which such philosophies. This is what I believe you may have been referring to in your message above, and indeed is often confused with atheism, as mentioned in the dictionary.com article above.
All good. Everyone is on this rock to find their own way in life, or to help their fellow man find theirs... help, not force, or coerce mind you.
__
ipsa scientia potestas est
"knowledge itself is power" - Francis Bacon