The two-way barrier nature of the cage is why I would only install it inside the theater, not the building as a whole. See, I would then have two types of theaters available to my customers. The theater with the cages installed would be the ultimate 'luxury viewing' theaters. Maybe in these theaters I would charge say $.50 - $1.00 more but would cut out cell phones AND commercials, leaving only previews? And the other theaters would be 'standard viewing' or something, cell phones aren't blocked, you get the commericals, etc.
I dunno, how much do you think it would cost to install a Faraday cage in a theater of average size?
In my country, and you can guess which one, if it's life-or-death the hospital isn't going to wait for authorization. They'll fix the kid and bill me later.
Seriously, if that was really the reason then you'd have to ask why planes have reclining seats and music via headphones. Each of those is equally capable of being annoying.
So because you think each of those are equally capable of being annoying you think it's ok to essentially double the amount of annoyance by allowing cell phone use on planes, by your own definition of the annoyance?/sigh
But, how much money could I make if I started a business that installed Faraday cages into movie theaters? Could I completely block all cell traffic with one? And could I install the cages relatively cheap and keep them invisible? See, I know there's been talk amongst movie theaters of using jammers to stop cell phone use. But the FCC is against that and it doesn't look like it's going to happen. But can the FCC stop me from constructing a faraday cage around my theater to 'ensure the highest degree of fidelity of the digital projection equipment, thereby ensuring the best viewing experience'?
I'll tell you what, if I know one theater in town has faraday cages and the others don't.. I'm goin to the one with the cages.
A lot of people argue that they need their cell phones during a movie in case of emergency situations. I think that's bullshit. For decades people managed to go to movie theaters without cell phones. They accepted there might be emergencies happening that they weren't aware of until after they left the theater. They accepted this because whenever an emergency happens and you are twenty minutes from the scene you are 99% of the time too late anyway.
Someone enlighten me here, what kind of emergency can you really expect to respond to fast enough to make a difference by racing out of a theater to the scene of the emergency? By the time you get there either the emergency is over or people who are supposed to handle that sort of thing (you know, EMT, Firefighters, professionals...) have already done so. But please, give me an example of how I could be wrong. I'm curious. There has to be something.
Final Cut Pro was orginally developed for the PC. And though it ultimately ended up in the Apple camp it could easily be brought back over to the PC. It might even benefit Apple to do so if Apple eventually releases OS X+ for the PC. It's just an example of business posturing more than fundamental differences between the platforms.
DVD Studio Pro is considered one of the best, yes. It doesn't offer to do anything more spectacular than the PC equivalents, just does it slightly better. Same for Shake.
Word by default tries to anticipate what you're doing. Do you want it to stop? Here's how: Click on "Tools" then click on "Options". In here you will find several tabs related to Word's automatic adjustments to your document. You may turn them all off if you like. It will then do only what you want. Want to see the formatting in your document? Displaying the formatting codes is possible, too.
Or if you want, you can use the fantastically simple method of "ctrl-z". Any time Word does an automatic change to your formatting, for example you don't want it to create an extra tab, or a new list, just press ctrl-z after the automatic change and viola! it is gone.
For me, for a long time, Word gave me these problems. The helper, the automatic changes, the spelling changes, the grammar changes. I eventually decided I needed to actually LEARN the options and functions of the program. Since then, I've had a much better experience with it.
My one caveat on this subject is I do think the automated features should be off by default. If I want them I'll enable them, thank you very much. Otherwise, please let me write in peace.
I think history has shown that no matter how hard you try you cannot create a doorway in software protection and only expect to let those you want get through. The nature of software today is so fluid that it's possible to make your way through the door by imitation, brute force, social engineering, etc. Microsoft does not seem to grog this. Neither do DRM propenents. Information will find a way to get through, around, over and above, and beneath all obstacles.
So what do you do? Well, one thing you don't do is provide special security rights to only certain approved software.
The only true answer is open software and education. People who don't know how to use their computers will be attacked. They will be compromised. If you can't control yourself on the internet and local networks, you will lose the right to control your computer because someone will take it from you. If you run unknown and untrusted programs, you face the risks. Your online habits help determine your exposure. If you absolutely must visit 'free porn', warez, social networks like MySpace, etc websites, then do so with caution tempered by proper education on how to isolate your important, sensitive data, from the rest of the crap you are willing to lose. You are better off simply not visiting sites of that nature. But if you are going to, at least understand how to keep yourself safe. Because no software written today is going to be able to do it for you. There will always be software out there capable of getting around it.
In the end, to the wolves go the slowest, weakest sheep. It's natural. Don't be one of them.
How does it make me a fanboy to make an observation based on obvious facts? There is no other solution available that is better. I base this judgment on the following:
No other software is supported by more third party companies or OEMs.
No other software has as large a community dedicated to supporting it.
No other software is that much better that everyone is switching right away.
Your information is out of date. It is perfectly possible to be just as productive on a Mac as on Windows -- probably more so, when you consider how much less maintenance and fiddling the OS itself requires.
I don't know what maintenance and fiddling you are talking about. A well done Windows install is unattended, self-healing(updating), leaves no room for the employee to screw it up, and is pre-configured. If the machine craters the employee can be back up and running in the amount of time it takes to re-apply the image. Often that means twenty minutes. If your Mac-based network computer craters, can you beat that 20 minute turnaround time? I am betting that because you choose to use the Mac in the MS environment your Turnaround time is measured in hours if not longer. With the right setup the employee profile and settings, their files, everything is remote and is not lost in the reinstall. The problem to me sounds like incompetent IT people, not the users.
You don't sound like someone who has experienced what a properly set up MS solution can offer. Maybe that's the main source of discontent here.
Oh, pathetic. Best solution because Office is a standard forced on many people, or best solution because it's actually usable? And yes, there is a difference.
What is the difference then? The best is the best, no matter how you cut it. It might be pathetic that the reason it's the best is that everybody uses it hence you get compatibility between businesses and offices. If you want to call that pathetic, so be it. But compatibility is based on communication and communication is high on the list of the most important facets of business. I don't call that pathetic. I imagine now you'll want to tell me all about the fully compatible alternative solutions to MS Office for example. None of which are as powerful without sacrificing too much usability. None of which have nearly as many training and support organizations. None of which have an online community even one tenth the size of MS Office...
MS's solutions are RARELY actually usable, and typically _are_ forced on people by head-in-the-sand IT managers or just-below-competent middle managers who learned Windows, never tried anything else, can't change, and therefore think that everyone should use what they do.
I don't know where you work, or what you've seen. I do know that every office environment I've worked in has used Microsoft as their OS and productivity suite provider. And I know that the truth is the opposite of what you said. Their solutions are RARELY unusable.
I guess MS's products _could_ be considered the best solution for productivity for today's generation of VXers and script kiddies... that's true enough... and for anti-virus vendors...
The biggest community is going to have the most people trying to get their piece of the action. So naturally you'll have more people writing virii etc for Windows than other OS. This does not prove that Windows is more vulnerable. In fact, it makes it far more difficult to make qualitative judgments on vulnerability. Yet you seem to have no trouble making them without any sort of scientific basis.
Point taken. There might be another Google out there right now, ready to explode onto the scene. Maybe. My opinion is that Google is the only real threat to Microsoft, unless there is a hidden threat I can't see.
But, in any case, whether or not there is, I really just wanted to say that to me all the matters is who is the best. That's all I care about. There are a lot of factors that determine who is the best. Right now one of the largest factors for Microsoft is that so many people are trained for and using their software. Like I said about critical mass -- eventually anyone who has a better solution will achieve a quadratic or expontential rate of adoption and the mass will be achieved very fast. Then I'll switch without looking back.
It wouldn't surprise me at all to find that the Microsoft market share among the up-and-coming wave of computer innovators is actually very slim. And if that is in fact the case, Microsoft should indeed be worried.
The only thing Microsoft should be worried about is Google IMHO. Anybody smaller will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Loyalty to any specific company in the computing industry is like being loyal to vaccuum tubes over transistors. It makes no sense. Go with the best.
The way I see it, people who adamantly choose Apple or some 'innovator' solution are the ones who have loyalty involved with their decisions instead of sheer usability/efficiency etc. People who choose Microsoft do so because it is simply the best solution in today's workplace for productivity. If and when that changes (i.e. when a critical mass switches to something more productive) those people will switch and loyalty will have nothing to do with it. They are the more flexible ones. Not the people who are 'Apple 4 life!' fanboys.
I remember back in college we were thinking about writing some software that would generate Quake 1 maps based on the contents of your HDD. It would be a total UI. You could then delete files by shooting them with the rocket launcher and go to different programs by runnin around inside yer HDD.
I can garauntee that they don't work well in television. At least, not on me. Because, even if they're only 1 frame, I can see them at 24fps. And it greatly annoys me when things flicker on the screen. I might not be able to tell what's flickering there (depending on the complexity of the image), but I promise you I will find out (record, pause, learn). And when I do, and it's some total BS thought up by some ad company, I can further promise you I will be purposefully not buying their product.
Nope, stick with good old quality writing and you'll get my interest. Then I'll at least look into your product and consider buying it. Otherwise, good luck.
Ok so even though they're rotated on a regular basis... If you know exactly what sort of encryption is used it will still take a long time to crack it?
So what happens when QC becomes available to the public. Yesterday's article about the D-wave 16qbit computer sparked my interest in this stuff. I mean, far as I know it can only attain 'quadratic' speedup, as opposed to exponential. And it can't solve NP-complete problems.
So, how does this relate to today's cryptography. And is it possible to do 'quantum cryptography'?
Forget the stupid terminator reference to something that's been around a lot longer than the Terminator series. I want to know how long before the 'secure' transmissions are decrypted by some black-hat hackers in North Korea and one time pads become a requirement. Also I hope they've cooked up some excellent misinformation to sift into the normal transmissions.
Anyone care to guess what kind of encryption they'll be using? Something they cooked up for the job or something that's been out a while? I'm not a cryptographer. I am curious though, what kind of digital encryption is out there that's considered unbreakable?
That's the worst possible word to describe what is simply IP radio. What does it even mean? That the radio travels over lines that are on the ground? And what happens when it goes through the millions of wireless broadcast points and everyone can access it like it was...radio?
Radio is radio. The idea that they should be taxed differently is absurd. Even more absurd is the idea that IP radio be taxed more than normal radio because normal radio can be freely recorded and digitized by anyone within the broadcast radius, whereas to get IP radio you have to be paying for internet access (most of the time).
Slashdot Mirror
But I want to avoid the FCC. Jamming that way is illegal. Cage that just sits there isn't.
TLF
The two-way barrier nature of the cage is why I would only install it inside the theater, not the building as a whole. See, I would then have two types of theaters available to my customers. The theater with the cages installed would be the ultimate 'luxury viewing' theaters. Maybe in these theaters I would charge say $.50 - $1.00 more but would cut out cell phones AND commercials, leaving only previews? And the other theaters would be 'standard viewing' or something, cell phones aren't blocked, you get the commericals, etc.
I dunno, how much do you think it would cost to install a Faraday cage in a theater of average size?
TLF
In my country, and you can guess which one, if it's life-or-death the hospital isn't going to wait for authorization. They'll fix the kid and bill me later.
TLF
So because you think each of those are equally capable of being annoying you think it's ok to essentially double the amount of annoyance by allowing cell phone use on planes, by your own definition of the annoyance?
TLF
So this is like.. tangentially OT.
But, how much money could I make if I started a business that installed Faraday cages into movie theaters? Could I completely block all cell traffic with one? And could I install the cages relatively cheap and keep them invisible? See, I know there's been talk amongst movie theaters of using jammers to stop cell phone use. But the FCC is against that and it doesn't look like it's going to happen. But can the FCC stop me from constructing a faraday cage around my theater to 'ensure the highest degree of fidelity of the digital projection equipment, thereby ensuring the best viewing experience'?
I'll tell you what, if I know one theater in town has faraday cages and the others don't.. I'm goin to the one with the cages.
A lot of people argue that they need their cell phones during a movie in case of emergency situations. I think that's bullshit. For decades people managed to go to movie theaters without cell phones. They accepted there might be emergencies happening that they weren't aware of until after they left the theater. They accepted this because whenever an emergency happens and you are twenty minutes from the scene you are 99% of the time too late anyway.
Someone enlighten me here, what kind of emergency can you really expect to respond to fast enough to make a difference by racing out of a theater to the scene of the emergency? By the time you get there either the emergency is over or people who are supposed to handle that sort of thing (you know, EMT, Firefighters, professionals...) have already done so. But please, give me an example of how I could be wrong. I'm curious. There has to be something.
TLF
That they're asking for permission to do it... because they've already done it?
I do.
TLF
Pick your flavor, Intel and AMD both have quad-core CPUs coming out soon. Dual socket Mobo and there you go.
Guess we don't want to talk about how much a 8 core mac pro is going to cost vs. a similarly powerful PC?
TLF
Final Cut Pro was orginally developed for the PC. And though it ultimately ended up in the Apple camp it could easily be brought back over to the PC. It might even benefit Apple to do so if Apple eventually releases OS X+ for the PC. It's just an example of business posturing more than fundamental differences between the platforms.
DVD Studio Pro is considered one of the best, yes. It doesn't offer to do anything more spectacular than the PC equivalents, just does it slightly better. Same for Shake.
TLF
Word by default tries to anticipate what you're doing. Do you want it to stop? Here's how:
Click on "Tools" then click on "Options". In here you will find several tabs related to Word's automatic adjustments to your document. You may turn them all off if you like. It will then do only what you want. Want to see the formatting in your document? Displaying the formatting codes is possible, too.
Or if you want, you can use the fantastically simple method of "ctrl-z". Any time Word does an automatic change to your formatting, for example you don't want it to create an extra tab, or a new list, just press ctrl-z after the automatic change and viola! it is gone.
For me, for a long time, Word gave me these problems. The helper, the automatic changes, the spelling changes, the grammar changes. I eventually decided I needed to actually LEARN the options and functions of the program. Since then, I've had a much better experience with it.
My one caveat on this subject is I do think the automated features should be off by default. If I want them I'll enable them, thank you very much. Otherwise, please let me write in peace.
TLF
I think history has shown that no matter how hard you try you cannot create a doorway in software protection and only expect to let those you want get through. The nature of software today is so fluid that it's possible to make your way through the door by imitation, brute force, social engineering, etc. Microsoft does not seem to grog this. Neither do DRM propenents. Information will find a way to get through, around, over and above, and beneath all obstacles.
So what do you do? Well, one thing you don't do is provide special security rights to only certain approved software.
The only true answer is open software and education. People who don't know how to use their computers will be attacked. They will be compromised. If you can't control yourself on the internet and local networks, you will lose the right to control your computer because someone will take it from you. If you run unknown and untrusted programs, you face the risks. Your online habits help determine your exposure. If you absolutely must visit 'free porn', warez, social networks like MySpace, etc websites, then do so with caution tempered by proper education on how to isolate your important, sensitive data, from the rest of the crap you are willing to lose. You are better off simply not visiting sites of that nature. But if you are going to, at least understand how to keep yourself safe. Because no software written today is going to be able to do it for you. There will always be software out there capable of getting around it.
In the end, to the wolves go the slowest, weakest sheep. It's natural. Don't be one of them.
- No other software is that much better that everyone is switching right away.
I don't know what maintenance and fiddling you are talking about. A well done Windows install is unattended, self-healing(updating), leaves no room for the employee to screw it up, and is pre-configured. If the machine craters the employee can be back up and running in the amount of time it takes to re-apply the image. Often that means twenty minutes. If your Mac-based network computer craters, can you beat that 20 minute turnaround time? I am betting that because you choose to use the Mac in the MS environment your Turnaround time is measured in hours if not longer. With the right setup the employee profile and settings, their files, everything is remote and is not lost in the reinstall. The problem to me sounds like incompetent IT people, not the users.You don't sound like someone who has experienced what a properly set up MS solution can offer. Maybe that's the main source of discontent here.
TLF
What is the difference then? The best is the best, no matter how you cut it. It might be pathetic that the reason it's the best is that everybody uses it hence you get compatibility between businesses and offices. If you want to call that pathetic, so be it. But compatibility is based on communication and communication is high on the list of the most important facets of business. I don't call that pathetic. I imagine now you'll want to tell me all about the fully compatible alternative solutions to MS Office for example. None of which are as powerful without sacrificing too much usability. None of which have nearly as many training and support organizations. None of which have an online community even one tenth the size of MS Office...
I don't know where you work, or what you've seen. I do know that every office environment I've worked in has used Microsoft as their OS and productivity suite provider. And I know that the truth is the opposite of what you said. Their solutions are RARELY unusable.
The biggest community is going to have the most people trying to get their piece of the action. So naturally you'll have more people writing virii etc for Windows than other OS. This does not prove that Windows is more vulnerable. In fact, it makes it far more difficult to make qualitative judgments on vulnerability. Yet you seem to have no trouble making them without any sort of scientific basis.
TLF
Point taken. There might be another Google out there right now, ready to explode onto the scene. Maybe. My opinion is that Google is the only real threat to Microsoft, unless there is a hidden threat I can't see.
But, in any case, whether or not there is, I really just wanted to say that to me all the matters is who is the best. That's all I care about. There are a lot of factors that determine who is the best. Right now one of the largest factors for Microsoft is that so many people are trained for and using their software. Like I said about critical mass -- eventually anyone who has a better solution will achieve a quadratic or expontential rate of adoption and the mass will be achieved very fast. Then I'll switch without looking back.
TLF
The only thing Microsoft should be worried about is Google IMHO. Anybody smaller will be assimilated. Resistance is futile.
Loyalty to any specific company in the computing industry is like being loyal to vaccuum tubes over transistors. It makes no sense. Go with the best.
The way I see it, people who adamantly choose Apple or some 'innovator' solution are the ones who have loyalty involved with their decisions instead of sheer usability/efficiency etc. People who choose Microsoft do so because it is simply the best solution in today's workplace for productivity. If and when that changes (i.e. when a critical mass switches to something more productive) those people will switch and loyalty will have nothing to do with it. They are the more flexible ones. Not the people who are 'Apple 4 life!' fanboys.
TLF
Has he put up beaucoup bucks in Vegas on his numbers? If not, why not. If so, how much did he win, and where can I get his numbers this year?
TLF
No, you might be the only one who thinks a mouse is faster than knowing every single keyboard shortcut for what you need when you can type 1,200 WPM.
I guess.
TLF
I remember back in college we were thinking about writing some software that would generate Quake 1 maps based on the contents of your HDD. It would be a total UI. You could then delete files by shooting them with the rocket launcher and go to different programs by runnin around inside yer HDD.
We never made the Quake UI. I wish we had.
TLF
Bahah thank you, I was looking for that in a earlier post. Awesome.
TLF
ROFL.
That reminds me of the SNL skit Kevin Neilan (sp?) did..
"I was thinking we could go out for some hotsex dinner and then maybe later a movie..."
Well, it went something like that anyway. Damned good.
TLF
I can garauntee that they don't work well in television. At least, not on me. Because, even if they're only 1 frame, I can see them at 24fps. And it greatly annoys me when things flicker on the screen. I might not be able to tell what's flickering there (depending on the complexity of the image), but I promise you I will find out (record, pause, learn). And when I do, and it's some total BS thought up by some ad company, I can further promise you I will be purposefully not buying their product.
Nope, stick with good old quality writing and you'll get my interest. Then I'll at least look into your product and consider buying it. Otherwise, good luck.
TLF
Ok so even though they're rotated on a regular basis... If you know exactly what sort of encryption is used it will still take a long time to crack it?
So what happens when QC becomes available to the public. Yesterday's article about the D-wave 16qbit computer sparked my interest in this stuff. I mean, far as I know it can only attain 'quadratic' speedup, as opposed to exponential. And it can't solve NP-complete problems.
So, how does this relate to today's cryptography. And is it possible to do 'quantum cryptography'?
Just questions, that's all I really have anymore,
TLF
OK, so I read that completely wrong.
:)
/. doesn't have an edit function. Why why why?
Let the pain begin.
Sometimes I really wonder why
TLF
Forget the stupid terminator reference to something that's been around a lot longer than the Terminator series. I want to know how long before the 'secure' transmissions are decrypted by some black-hat hackers in North Korea and one time pads become a requirement. Also I hope they've cooked up some excellent misinformation to sift into the normal transmissions.
Anyone care to guess what kind of encryption they'll be using? Something they cooked up for the job or something that's been out a while? I'm not a cryptographer. I am curious though, what kind of digital encryption is out there that's considered unbreakable?
TLF
That's the worst possible word to describe what is simply IP radio. What does it even mean? That the radio travels over lines that are on the ground? And what happens when it goes through the millions of wireless broadcast points and everyone can access it like it was...radio?
Radio is radio. The idea that they should be taxed differently is absurd. Even more absurd is the idea that IP radio be taxed more than normal radio because normal radio can be freely recorded and digitized by anyone within the broadcast radius, whereas to get IP radio you have to be paying for internet access (most of the time).
TLF