So you can't use a PS3 to watch high def content from a linux (or other open) network disk? Someone had told me the GameOS supports the "plug and play" network media stuff that Microsoft and other vendors (including Myth TV?) offer. Does it? If so, what's the best the PS3 can do "off the shelf" ?
I was thinking of picking one up for this feature (to be able to watch up to 1080i analog component served from a linux server, or even downloaded to the PS3 drive)..
That would certainly help them, but I think they're really going for the "ink jet" model - give the hardware away below cost and make the money back on consumables.
Microsoft have a crazy amount of cash sitting in the bank, and can sustain selling the xbox at a loss for a very long time..
Microsoft are selling the Xbox 360 at a loss, even more so now that the base Xbox is slightly less than a Nintendo Wii.
In the game machine market it is a race to negative something.
It is telling that Sony have not dropped their baseline as dramatically as Microsoft. One company has bags and bags of cash in the bank, and it appears the other one doesn't.
By all accounts the US are the instigaters of this ACTA nonsense, instigated under a Republican administration.
Trade reps have been bullying and bribing the Canadian government for a couple of years to get our Lilly livered conservatives to try to pass a "made in Canada" DMCA that makes the US DMCA look like a good idea. (Bill C-61)
It went away when the Canadian Conservative party called an election this fall, but now that's done with, it's expected to come back with a vengeance.
This ACTA thing seems to be phase 2, and you can bet it is NOT AT ALL about free speech, but rather the exact opposite.
Expect your internet connection box to turn you in for crimes against the state in a few years.
Canada is also a part of this RIAA farce. This is big media taking the biggest stance yet against the free flow of information on the internet. This benefits big business, not voters, nor likely the artists as history shows.
How best to make this stuff public? Hopefully someone will get a copy out to wikileaks. Also perhaps a list of politicians who are directly (or indirectly?) involved in this deal should be published to shame them into coming clean..
Yes, but to no benefit of Canada as an industrial nation. Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that the people who designed the Arrow went on to share apply their skills and knowledge in the US and Europe, as they should. No reason they should suffer. It's just a shame that Diefenbaker was such a pussy when the US leaned on him to cancel the Arrow.
There lies the crux. You believe the Bible is from the mind of your god, and I believe it is from the minds of humans, and there is no evidence at all that it contains one single word from the mind of a supreme being, and do not believe in the supernatural events it describes.
Just because I chose not to believe in your god doesn't make me an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not (therefore agnostic), and unless I wake up somewhere else after dying I suspect I'll never know. This doesn't mean I'll give up trying. If there is a creator, I believe the Scientific method is the best way to understand him/her/it. The real physical universe is far more beautiful and magical and complex than anything described by the world's religions. If you want a religious goal for humanity it would be to study and learn the works of the creator. By "works" I mean the physical universe around us, not some 2000 year old propaganda put out by Romans to enslave their uneducated populace.
Accepting a 2000 year old fairy tail on faith - without question - is truly ignorant.
What would I do if I were in the position of a true creator of all the universe? I have no idea, since such a being would be completely alien to my experience.
Why would such a being even be aware of these tiny little creatures in a remote part of a galaxy in a universe that is filled with billions of galaxies, that may indeed go on forever? Thing of a colony of bacteria sitting on the bottom of the ocean about to be engulfed by a renewed lava outflow as you sit on your couch. How would you decide which of these bacteria you should save in your petri dish?
It's a fairly irrelevant question from a human perspective, but since a true supreme being would have to be so much more than human, it is impossible for a human to "know the mind of God".
Absolutely I've thought about that, it is one reason that many scientifically minded believe in a supreme being (not me), BUT the god that the Old and New Testament describe are hardly rational. In fact, I find it specifically difficult that the genocidal God of the Old Testament is the same as described in the New. More likely the Old Testament was rolled in to Christianity as a marketing ploy to entice the traditionalists to join the new.
For me, for lack of a more appropriate term, I'm an agnostic - which I define as being interested in such issues, but undecided. There may well be some supreme being behind the universe we see, but I have seen no evidence that convinces me either way. I've read both the Old and New Testament, in no way do I agree that it passes any level of credibility either as a description of our universe or even as a reasonably accurate history lesson. It was written by humans with many different known and unknown agendas - maintain control of the Roman Empire being #1 on the list.
Even the date of the Birth of Christ was moved to line up with the winter solstice. Not the least bit accurate, but since the adherents are never allowed to question, it is good enough for the faithful.
The Christian Bible and the Old Testament while historically significant no more describe the universe to me than Dawkin's tales of flying spaghetti monsters does. I utterly reject creationism and the fake psuedoscience of "intelligent design" as pure fantasy that we're expected to accept on faith by people who want power over my life.
Don't get me started on the "Parting of the Red Sea" nonsense (my god is So Tough, he even parted the red sea! Whoa, dude, that's so cool! Count me a believer!)
Even the core tenement of Christianity (which few Christians seem to adhere to) of "turn the other cheek" to me is such an obvious mind control technique that King James had inserted into his version of the New Testament to keep his serfs meek and mild, making them far easier to control and exploit.
The very thought that "one must be good" else you "go to hell and burn for eternity" is such a crock. If a person is only behaving because of a fear of hell, that hardly qualifies as Actually Being a Good Person. Being good and decent comes from within, not from some absurd fear of red devils with pitchforks.
I can completely understand why so many religious people "just don't get science" when they hold up the bible as an example of "Truth".
In short, if there is a god or gods or what have you, I seriously doubt any religion on the planet is one iota close to the truth of it.
I find it sheer arrogance that the world's religions claim to have the answer to life the universe and everything when their answers were concocted by people with less understanding of the world as a modern five year old.
You are right, if a/the supreme being exists and confronts me, I would dismiss it/him/her out of hand and assume any supernatural special effects were due to clever technology or someone slipping me some acid. Guess I'd probably burn in hell, depending on said being's mood at the time.
All scientific theory IS grey, it is the world's religions who claim black and white.. Except perhaps Buddhism.
Actually the scientists don't assume that the laws and constants have always been the same, but that's sort of beside your point.
In theory yes, you would be right, you could all be a complete figment of my imagination etc etc, or that all the physics mankind has worked out is a cruel joke by the supreme being and tomorrow we wake up to a land full of purple dinosaurs.
Till then, so far, my world seems to be a fairly consistent place, and acts as if it follows a rational set of laws that humans are slowly discovering.
I agree I do have faith that this will continue and that the "reality" being documented by the scientific method is for all practical purposes the "one true reality", and that those other "realities" described by the world's religion are inaccurate at best, and a complete fabrication designed to hold power over the gullible at worst.
If we agree that the world is a solid and real place, I argue that the scientific method is a far more reliable way to describe and advance our understanding of our universe, and no one is expected to accept scientific theories on faith, unlike in the world's religions where questioning the faith is frowned on, and can get you killed in some circumstances.
That PR stunt was clearly targeted to Joe the Plumber and meant to imply that the Iraq war was over, and that's exactly how it was interpreted everywhere.
Was it intentionally misleading? I don't think so. I think the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice Pax Americana team actually believed the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets then (Bush was always just a dumb ass puppet).
the USA and other western countries could either wait (or even try to encourage the development of IP within China), or it could stop doing business with China until China changes.
A little too late for that. The US is in some trillions of dollars in Debt to... China.
China artificially hold their Yuan at a fixed valuation to the US dollar by buying/selling Gold/US Dollars/TBills on a daily basis.
If they stopped doing that (As George W Bush has demanded now and then for some odd reason) the US dollar would plummet down lower than the Peso.
At some point the US will realize that China won the economic war somewhere around about 1999..
In other news Citizens of the area known as the Olympic Peninsula are breathing a sigh of relief, in fact may even have glowing hearts in the winter of 2010, during their Gold and Silver anniversaries..
With glowing hearts in 2010, punching beavers in the face!
The IOC can bite me.
Another reason not to vote for the Conservatives, as if Bill C-61 wasn't enough. Why the hell would you pass a law that lets someone trademark part of a national anthem that has been in the public domain for years? How does this benefit the voters? What possible reason can they offer? At least tell me they got some kickbacks for it?? Dumbasses!
Yes, a database is a fancy file system. Take a file system, add some precalculated hash lookups for speeding up search, glue on an SQL interface, you have a database.
I also agree, I don't think it is a power saving issue. That was proposed by the other commenter as an explanation for the hash system.
A non techy Ipod user can not plug his/her ipod into someone elses PC and simply copy the songs to that person's hard drive. Many of my non tech freinds don't even know that the ipod can be set to act as a USB drive, and wouldn't know that they could find the songs squirreled away in a subdirectory with oddball names.
Yes they could burn a CD and give it to their friends, who could then rip it back to a lossy compression file for their own ipods, but this is a pain in the neck for a novice computer user.
I never claimed the hash thing was a good protection system, but it stops novice computer users cold. Since then Apple have shown a trend for even stronger DRM, so it's not at all a stretch to claim the file hashing was only the start.
You're unconvinced, that's fine, we can agree to disagree..
That does make some sense, although a database is just a fancy filesystem, so it would only save power if the database data format itself was easier to parse than a simple filesystem. Either way, I'd suspect the power budget of looking up song names to be a trivial part of the total, so I still don't buy the theory that the hashing is there to save power, but rather is there to keep non techies from sharing songs ipod to ipod, thus satisfying the content publishers, thus getting them to sign up to ITunes.
Slashdot Mirror
Interesting, unfortunately my old school TV only has component 1080i in, no DVI, no HDMI.. :(
So you can't use a PS3 to watch high def content from a linux (or other open) network disk?
Someone had told me the GameOS supports the "plug and play" network media stuff that Microsoft and other vendors (including Myth TV?) offer.
Does it? If so, what's the best the PS3 can do "off the shelf" ?
I was thinking of picking one up for this feature (to be able to watch up to 1080i analog component served from a linux server, or even downloaded to the PS3 drive)..
That would certainly help them, but I think they're really going for the "ink jet" model - give the hardware away below cost and make the money back on consumables.
Microsoft have a crazy amount of cash sitting in the bank, and can sustain selling the xbox at a loss for a very long time..
I agree it is a race to market price.
Microsoft are selling the Xbox 360 at a loss,
even more so now that the base Xbox is slightly less than a Nintendo Wii.
In the game machine market it is a race to negative something.
It is telling that Sony have not dropped their baseline as dramatically as Microsoft.
One company has bags and bags of cash in the bank, and it appears the other one doesn't.
Whoa dude,
By all accounts the US are the instigaters of this ACTA nonsense, instigated under a Republican administration.
Trade reps have been bullying and bribing the Canadian government for a couple of years to get our Lilly livered conservatives to try to pass a "made in Canada" DMCA that makes the US DMCA look like a good idea. (Bill C-61)
It went away when the Canadian Conservative party called an election this fall, but now that's done with, it's expected to come back with a vengeance.
This ACTA thing seems to be phase 2, and you can bet it is NOT AT ALL about free speech, but rather the exact opposite.
Expect your internet connection box to turn you in for crimes against the state in a few years.
Canada is also a part of this RIAA farce.
This is big media taking the biggest stance yet against the free flow of information on the internet.
This benefits big business, not voters, nor likely the artists as history shows.
How best to make this stuff public? Hopefully someone will get a copy out to wikileaks.
Also perhaps a list of politicians who are directly (or indirectly?) involved in this deal should be published to shame them into coming clean..
Actually I think one of the beavers retired after a punch from Stephen Colbert. He's been replaced by a marmot now..
Hey, we have several rowboats and sea kayaks standing by here in Canada, so don't get your hopes up!
Yes, but to no benefit of Canada as an industrial nation. Don't get me wrong, I think it is great that the people who designed the Arrow went on to share apply their skills and knowledge in the US and Europe, as they should. No reason they should suffer.
It's just a shame that Diefenbaker was such a pussy when the US leaned on him to cancel the Arrow.
Semantics.
Ok, the arctic ice pack has melted back from land enough to leave open water on all sides for the first time in human history.
That by itself is not a "problem" per se, the real problem is the dramatic loss of white reflective snow, traded in for heat soaking ocean.
The owners of the robots become wealthy and hold the power, not the robots themselves.
We're an extremely long way from any sign of actual machine intelligence, and only a complete moron would give such a machine power. Uh oh...
Ok, we're an extremely long way from machine intelligence...
There lies the crux. You believe the Bible is from the mind of your god, and I believe it is from the minds of humans, and there is no evidence at all that it contains one single word from the mind of a supreme being, and do not believe in the supernatural events it describes.
We simply must agree to disagree, and move on.
Just because I chose not to believe in your god doesn't make me an atheist. I don't know if there is a god or not (therefore agnostic), and unless I wake up somewhere else after dying I suspect I'll never know. This doesn't mean I'll give up trying. If there is a creator, I believe the Scientific method is the best way to understand him/her/it. The real physical universe is far more beautiful and magical and complex than anything described by the world's religions. If you want a religious goal for humanity it would be to study and learn the works of the creator.
By "works" I mean the physical universe around us, not some 2000 year old propaganda put out by Romans to enslave their uneducated populace.
Accepting a 2000 year old fairy tail on faith - without question - is truly ignorant.
What would I do if I were in the position of a true creator of all the universe? I have no idea, since such a being would be completely alien to my experience.
Why would such a being even be aware of these tiny little creatures in a remote part of a galaxy in a universe that is filled with billions of galaxies, that may indeed go on forever? Thing of a colony of bacteria sitting on the bottom of the ocean about to be engulfed by a renewed lava outflow as you sit on your couch. How would you decide which of these bacteria you should save in your petri dish?
It's a fairly irrelevant question from a human perspective, but since a true supreme being would have to be so much more than human, it is impossible for a human to "know the mind of God".
Absolutely I've thought about that, it is one reason that many scientifically minded believe in a supreme being (not me), BUT the god that the Old and New Testament describe are hardly rational. In fact, I find it specifically difficult that the genocidal God of the Old Testament is the same as described in the New. More likely the Old Testament was rolled in to Christianity as a marketing ploy to entice the traditionalists to join the new.
For me, for lack of a more appropriate term, I'm an agnostic - which I define as being interested in such issues, but undecided. There may well be some supreme being behind the universe we see, but I have seen no evidence that convinces me either way. I've read both the Old and New Testament, in no way do I agree that it passes any level of credibility either as a description of our universe or even as a reasonably accurate history lesson. It was written by humans with many different known and unknown agendas - maintain control of the Roman Empire being #1 on the list.
Even the date of the Birth of Christ was moved to line up with the winter solstice. Not the least bit accurate, but since the adherents are never allowed to question, it is good enough for the faithful.
The Christian Bible and the Old Testament while historically significant no more describe the universe to me than Dawkin's tales of flying spaghetti monsters does. I utterly reject creationism and the fake psuedoscience of "intelligent design" as pure fantasy that we're expected to accept on faith by people who want power over my life.
Don't get me started on the "Parting of the Red Sea" nonsense (my god is So Tough, he even parted the red sea! Whoa, dude, that's so cool! Count me a believer!)
Even the core tenement of Christianity (which few Christians seem to adhere to) of "turn the other cheek" to me is such an obvious mind control technique that King James had inserted into his version of the New Testament to keep his serfs meek and mild, making them far easier to control and exploit.
The very thought that "one must be good" else you "go to hell and burn for eternity" is such a crock. If a person is only behaving because of a fear of hell, that hardly qualifies as Actually Being a Good Person. Being good and decent comes from within, not from some absurd fear of red devils with pitchforks.
I can completely understand why so many religious people "just don't get science" when they hold up the bible as an example of "Truth".
In short, if there is a god or gods or what have you, I seriously doubt any religion on the planet is one iota close to the truth of it.
I find it sheer arrogance that the world's religions claim to have the answer to life the universe and everything when their answers were concocted by people with less understanding of the world as a modern five year old.
You are right, if a/the supreme being exists and confronts me, I would dismiss it/him/her out of hand and assume any supernatural special effects were due to clever technology or someone slipping me some acid. Guess I'd probably burn in hell, depending on said being's mood at the time.
All scientific theory IS grey, it is the world's religions who claim black and white.. Except perhaps Buddhism.
Whoa, channeling Dawkins again!
Peace be with you.
Actually the scientists don't assume that the laws and constants have always been the same, but that's sort of beside your point.
In theory yes, you would be right, you could all be a complete figment of my imagination etc etc, or that all the physics mankind has worked out is a cruel joke by the supreme being and tomorrow we wake up to a land full of purple dinosaurs.
Till then, so far, my world seems to be a fairly consistent place, and acts as if it follows a rational set of laws that humans are slowly discovering.
I agree I do have faith that this will continue and that the "reality" being documented by the scientific method is for all practical purposes the "one true reality", and that those other "realities" described by the world's religion are inaccurate at best, and a complete fabrication designed to hold power over the gullible at worst.
If we agree that the world is a solid and real place, I argue that the scientific method is a far more reliable way to describe and advance our understanding of our universe, and no one is expected to accept scientific theories on faith, unlike in the world's religions where questioning the faith is frowned on, and can get you killed in some circumstances.
In fact with science it is a requirement to always check the assumptions, be a skeptic and never accept any bit of information on faith.
This is why it is so powerful a tool for investigating and understanding the universe.
Give someone a top of the line laptop to keep for free and you're likely to get lots of glowing reviews.
It's a classic conflict of interest.
That PR stunt was clearly targeted to Joe the Plumber and meant to imply that the Iraq war was over, and that's exactly how it was interpreted everywhere.
Was it intentionally misleading? I don't think so. I think the Cheney/Rumsfeld/Rice Pax Americana team actually believed the Iraqis would be dancing in the streets then (Bush was always just a dumb ass puppet).
the USA and other western countries could either wait (or even try to encourage the development of IP within China), or it could stop doing business with China until China changes.
A little too late for that. The US is in some trillions of dollars in Debt to... China.
China artificially hold their Yuan at a fixed valuation to the US dollar by buying/selling Gold/US Dollars/TBills on a daily basis.
If they stopped doing that (As George W Bush has demanded now and then for some odd reason) the US dollar would plummet down lower than the Peso.
At some point the US will realize that China won the economic war somewhere around about 1999..
Somehow "whiplash" and "slashdot comments" don't go together well...
Hah! Take that IOC. I flame you! Wait till I twitter all my friends- feel the sting of my keyboard!
(See what I mean, no real punch to it..)
Point taken but who stops the IOC from freeloading on our National Anthem?
I say we sell this one to Colbert as well, the hell with it!
We could then get the CBC to offer up the new Hockey theme as an Anthem as well, one less song to learn eh?
In other news Citizens of the area known as the Olympic Peninsula are breathing a sigh of relief,
in fact may even have glowing hearts in the winter of 2010, during their Gold and Silver anniversaries..
To Stephen Colbert no less!
http://sports.yahoo.com/nhl/blog/puck_daddy/post/Video-Stephen-Colbert-on-hockey-theme-controver?urn=nhl,87395
With glowing hearts in 2010, punching beavers in the face!
The IOC can bite me.
Another reason not to vote for the Conservatives, as if Bill C-61 wasn't enough. Why the hell would you pass a law that lets someone trademark part of a national anthem that has been in the public domain for years? How does this benefit the voters?
What possible reason can they offer? At least tell me they got some kickbacks for it??
Dumbasses!
Yes, a database is a fancy file system.
Take a file system, add some precalculated hash lookups for speeding up search, glue on an SQL interface, you have a database.
I also agree, I don't think it is a power saving issue. That was proposed by the other commenter as an explanation for the hash system.
A non techy Ipod user can not plug his/her ipod into someone elses PC and simply copy the songs to that person's hard drive. Many of my non tech freinds don't even know that the ipod can be set to act as a USB drive, and wouldn't know that they could find the songs squirreled away in a subdirectory with oddball names.
Yes they could burn a CD and give it to their friends, who could then rip it back to a lossy compression file for their own ipods, but this is a pain in the neck for a novice computer user.
I never claimed the hash thing was a good protection system, but it stops novice computer users cold. Since then Apple have shown a trend for even stronger DRM, so it's not at all a stretch to claim the file hashing was only the start.
You're unconvinced, that's fine, we can agree to disagree..
That does make some sense, although a database is just a fancy filesystem, so it would only save power if the database data format itself was easier to parse than a simple filesystem.
Either way, I'd suspect the power budget of looking up song names to be a trivial part of the total, so I still don't buy the theory that the hashing is there to save power, but rather is there to keep non techies from sharing songs ipod to ipod, thus satisfying the content publishers, thus getting them to sign up to ITunes.