Although a knee jerk reaction is to express distaste for this decision, perhaps we should consider it in more depth. Like it or not, 'DVD Jon' and his work, DeCSS, do aid pirates.
That a product, program, or any tool for that matter, can be used to circumvent the law or do ill, does that mean that the tool is evil? Hardly. A tool is neither good nor bad, so long as it performs the task it was designed for in an adequate manner. Those kind of value judgements must be reserved for the person that employs that tool...
Is a gun inherently evil? Sure, there are many that use it for malicious purposes, but what about when the gun is in the lands of a legitimate authority? What about when it is in the hands of a potential rape victim?
Yes, that's not it was created and there are legit uses, but many people do use it to break the encryption scheme so they can rip and distribute movies. Is this necessarily what we want? If movie companies don't get paid for there work they'll stop making movies, blahda blahda.
Prosecute the Pirates. Prosecute the thieves. Don't buy materials from questionable sources. I'm not one of those people that thinks the "Industry" has no right to make a dollar. Still, the tool is not the problem. It is the people that choose to misuse it.
Additionally, while this is not a popular idea around here, isn't it the companies right to decide that they only want their disks to play on windows systems? I don't see anyone saying that people should be allowed to hack popular windows only games to run on liniux, so why should movies be different?
I don't think it is the company's right to determine how I use their product. If I have paid the same $22.00 for a DVD as my Windows using counterpart, how am I causing harm to Hollywood by viewing the movie on my own Linux running system? Have I hurt their revenue? Did I steal their intellectual property? Does my use of Linux automatically mean that I will decrypt their DVD, and spread it across the Internet free of charge?
What is the difference?
If anything, the movie industry should be going out of their way to put as many DVD players out there in the world as possible. They should have authored their own Linux DVD software, because it is beneficial to them to do so. The more players in existance, the more movies they are likely to sell. This seems evident to anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.
Short of producing such a software player themselves, they certainly shouldn't mind that someone else has saved them the trouble.
The piracy issue is a strawman arguement. DeCSS doesn't make a DVD any more "pirateable." You needn't break the encryption in order to take a single DVD, and duplicate it. You can produce duplicates without even attempting to decrypt the software, simply by making a bit-for-bit copy.
What DeCSS does allow for is the conversion from one format to another... It allows you to take a DVD, and from it, procude VCDs, etc. That's hardly a threat though. They are lower density, and lower resolution. Nobody would rather have a VCD than the corresponding DVD. In any event, VCD production poses the most minor of threats to the revenue streams of the movie industry.
In any event, this is definately a new reason not to move to Norway. I had no idea that "Double Jeopardy" protection wasn't commonplace in most of the "Free" world.
Slashdot has no shortage of technological "Rock Stars" (Linus, ESR, RMS, Bruce Perins, etc), but most of them didn't attain their fame as a result of being prosecuted to the fullest extent allowable by law...
You are a notable exception. What's it like being a rock star, and how great is it that you'll now be able to fully capitalize on your fame in the financial sense? Would you be in as promising a position today had you not run afoul of the law?
I agree with each of your points as to "Why strikeback is a bad idea," particularly from a legal perspective.
I concede that my thoughts on this topic are more concerned with the ethical/philisophical ramifications of electonic countermeasures, than with the legal ramifications of undertaking such actions.
I should have noted elsewhere, my citation of "No Duty to Retreat" wasn't intended to build a legal case for strikeback... I cited it more from the perspective of "here's a doctorine that is fairly widely recognized (if only in the US)" that I can get behind. I understand the doctorine, but what is more important in terms of the discussion, is that people understand the reasoning behind it.
If Jimmy Stewart were chiming in, I'm sure he'd say "That's all I can stand, and I'm not gonna take it any more!"
For starters, you are being attacked in your home. It doesn't matter that the attack is originating from elsewhere... It's the end-point that counts.
From your statement, you make it sound as if anyone initiating an attack on you with a ranged weapon (Slingshot, Bow and Arrow, Crossbow, Catapult, Mortar, Firearm, Artillery Shell, Ballistic Missle, etc.) is in the clear. Is that your contention? That would be absurd.
In Virginia, if someone is shooting at you (Your life is in imminent danger), you may use any force necessary to repel the threat, up to, and including, deadly force. Additionally, you may use deadly force to defend the life of someone else (You don't have to be the person in jeopardy), although, in terms of this discussion, that's irrelevant, and would open up an entirely different can of worms.
(You *should* make a reasonable attempt to evade or avoid when in a public place, but in a case where you are already being shot at, I think the threshold of "reasonable" is dramatically lowered. Is it reasonable that you must turn your back to a firing gunman and flee? Not in my mind.)
But this is not a discussion about the use of deadly force, and in the end, we're not talking about taking the life of the system administrator that failed to install a system security patch.
We're talking about the use of a non-lethal electronic countermeasure against a system that is attempting to compromise a system that is your property (your computer), and wasting resources that you have paid for (bandwidth).
I cited "No Duty to Retreat" because of the similarities between the case for using force as a means of self-defense, and the use of an electronic countermeasure as a means of protecting your property.
I think it is unreasonable that I should be forced to endure damage to my property or degradation of resources that are rightfully mine so as to accommodate an attacker, unwitting though he may be. It elevates the rights of the attacker to a plane higher than that of my own rights, and that runs 180 degrees opposite to everything I believe.
(For those playing along at home, yes, I am a citizen of the United States. I realize that in other parts of the world, the notion of Rights can be viewed as a curious novelty. Just the same, in this country, Rights are supposed to be sacrosanct.)
This relates to the Strikeback proposal rather directly. How many DDOS attacks use IP spoofing? Will you know who is attacking your system with certainty? How many systems are you allowed to incorrectly strike back at before you are legally liable?
Which incompetent admins that can't secure their own systems are you going to let decide who to strike back at???
Think of this in terms of the sniper attacks in the DC area last year. How much worse would it have been if 10 people nearby had pulled out guns and started randomly shooting at nearby vehicles that looked like they might be able to hide someone with a rifle? Thankfully, most people that carry a concealed weapon have more sense than to shoot at targets they are unsure of. I don't believe that of BOFHs on the internet.
You raise valid questions, and so have some others. Most of them, however, seem to think I'm out to shoot someone that sends an ICMP Echo Request in my general direction.:) As tempting as that may be, from time to time, we're not actually talking about killing anyone in this discussion.
How many DDOS attacks use IP spoofing? Probably a great many of them, but for most worms, IP spoofing is impossible, because the initiator in most cases needs to get responses back from the victim host. Using a spoofed IP address would make that nearly impossible.
Obviously, electronic countermeasures would have to be very specific. A set of counter responses would have to be tailored to counter a specific worm.
As an example, when NIMDA was running rampant, fully 5 months after appropriate patches had been offerred my Microsoft, and it was clear that there were a number of system administrators that had no interest in updating their systems, I put the NIMDA countermeasure on my system (I'd seen it posted here, as a matter of fact. That one had a problem, but I modified it to simply shut down the remote system, rather than disabling IIS first, and then attempting to shut down the system (That wouldn't have worked.)).
My logfiles were filled with invalid queries from infected systems... Hundreds of log lines per system. After employing the countermeasure, I'd get 5 or 6 lines in my log, and then silence from the infected host. My script left a message in the offender's log files stating that they were infected, and containing the URLs to all of the appropriate Microsoft documents, and the patches that needed to be installed.
Was I wrong to do so?
I'm sure there are plenty of people that think I was. I fully understand their perspective.
On the other hand, I think I was within my rights. It's pretty clear that 5 months after the outbreak, the people operating those systems were either unaware of the problem, or unconcerned about it's impact on others.
Let's say your auto manufacturer issues a recall about an unsafe braking system in your vehicle, directing you to take the vehicle into an authorized service center for corrective measures at no cost, and you choose not to do it. Months later, you experience a brake failure, and slam into another car. In my book, you're guilty of negligence.
I view the people that failed to patch their systems, 5 months after the NIMDA outbreak, when patches existed even prior to the NIMDA outbreak, in the same manner. Negligent. You've allowed your property to become a public hazard through inaction.
It isn't as if I built a scanner, to go out and sweep the Internet for people with infected systems, and attempted to shut hosts down at random. My script sat in wait. It retaliated only against systems that had brought the malicious code to bear on my system, and my bandwidth.
(As a result of NIMDA, to this day I am still unable to receive inbound connections on Port 80, because my ISP has set up filtering.)
I'm talking about disabling the offending instrament in an electronic attack... You're talking about damaging property completely unrelated to the attack.
I'm talking about protecting my own property. You're talking about destroying someone else's property.
As a consequence of my retaliation, they have to restart their server. As a consequence of your action, they have to find a new place to live, if they survive, that is.
You've illustrated the difference between self-defense, and vengeance.
Shocker you didn't sign your name. (Yeah, yeah... I have been trolled. I lost. Have a nice day.)
There is a concept in law called "No Duty to Retreat," and I see no reason why it cannot be applied in much the same way to cases like this.
This concept relates to self-defense, and deadly force. Follow along with me...
If a person is in public, and is threatened, that person must make every reasonable effort to avoid the use of deadly force as a means of self defense, prior to useing such force. He must attempt to leave the scene, etc. In short, there is a Duty to Retreat.
If, however, that person is in his home, his own property, that person may use deadly force as a means of self defense without having to exhaust every means of escape or avoidance. On his own property, a person has No Duty to Retreat.
How is the scenario for Cyber-attack any different? Unlike most of the people commenting on this article, I believe you do have the right to take active measures in protecting your property.
Obviously, we're not talking about deadly force... We're simply talking about electronic countermeasures.
If an unsecured system on the Internet has been infected by a malicious program, and is now launching it's own attack against your system, your property, denying you the use of bandwidth or resources that you are paying for, I think you're perfectly within your rights to put the attack down, and if necessary, the offending system.
A person utilizing the Internet has a certain responsibility not to cause harm, either through action, or inaction. Most people on the Internet today seem tragically unaware of this. Without this, the Internet is ripe for a tragedy of the commons situation.
Is it wrong to still believe that with Rights come Responsibilities, or that with Priviledge comes Obligation?
Your rights to swing your arms around recklessly ends at the tip of your fingers, and at the beginning of my nose.
I think Tim Mullen is 100% correct, and I'm surprised there aren't more people that agree with him.
That's an arguement that can be made in favor of DVI over Component Video, perhaps, but it doesn't work too well for DVI v. Firewire.
DVI's advantage over Firewire is that when an HD Receiver sends the video signal over DVI, it is an uncompressed signal.
With Firewire, there is a degree of compression, but it's largely a strawman arguement, as the compression/decompression is built into the Firewire controller.
Firewire is a far more versitle, in that it allows for data other than the video signal itself to traverse the wire, such as HAVi protocol, which Mitsubishi hopes will catch on. Devices on the Firewire chain announce themselves, and a common control protocol allows the Master device to control all of the others. (For instance, the TV can tell the VCR, or DVD player, to start the movie, or issue a pause, power on/off, etc. This allows for a better integrated universal remote control.)
Another reason to support Firewire over DVI is the whole DRM Holy War, although, Firewire has it's own Copy protection scheme (5C). It's simply not as draconian as the DVI proposal.
They will most likely support all 18 of the ATSC formats, of which 480p, 720p, and 1080i are the most utilized.
Most HD receviers are capable of receiving any of these formats. HD Monitors/HDTVs on the other hand, they are usually limited in which formats they can natively display.
My Mitsubishi, as an example, displays 480p and 1080i natively. A 720p signal is upconverted to 1080i by the recevier, prior to being tossed at the display.
Actually, the HD DirecTV receiver's missing Firewire support to this date was a decision of DirecTV. There's been a great deal of discussion over on the AVS Forum, and the Tivo Community Forum about this. (Samsung, as an example, makes a new OTA HD set-top box that has Firewire, but the corresponding new HD DirecTV box lacks the Firewire port.)
It appears that DirecTV has finally decided to relax the Firewire restriction, and you'll be able to see HD DirecTV receviers with Firewire support. (Which will kick ass... My TV has Firewire.)
No clue what connections will come on the HD DirecTivo, but I sure hope to see them with Component Out, DVI, and Firewire, supporting both early adopters (Component In only), and both digital interfaces.
(I'd like DVI to die a horrible death, but I recognize that most HDTV buyers can olny get one, or the other, and there's no reason they (the people with DVI) should be left out on the cold.)
Actually, I think that's a seperate point... One that has a certain degree of merit, but the specific gripe I've seen more than any other has to do with this being "too much system for the average user."
Those other complaints are fine with me... This system isn't unique, it is ridiculously expensive, it doesn't use the latest components (for the CPU), and it's all been done before.
For those reasons, sure, maybe this doesn't rate being a feature on Slashdot.
But being too powerful for the average user? That's not the limtmus test I want to see used in determining what makes it on to Slashdot, just as I wouldn't want to read a magazine claiming to deal with high performance automobiles, only to find that it contained information solely about the latest offerring from Saturn, Kia, or Hyundai.
...comprised of people that need only bang out a few business letters, browse a couple websites, or send and receive email messages?
Christ almighty, read that site banner:
Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
Joe average, the guy you are describing, has no idea where to find Slashdot. I certainly don't read this site so that I can see what passes for "good enough" in non-technical circles.
I want to know about:
the latest and greatest
cool uses for existing technology
technology used in ways that it was never intended
things that have never been done before
Stop acting as if this is a site dedicated to the least common denominator. It's not, and if it ever becomes so, as you suggest, I'll go somewhere else. If you're looking for the former, go read C|net.
If you are an arsonist, and you cause somebody millions of dollars worth of damage, then quite frankly, you deserve to dwell beneath the poverty line forever.
This guy voluntarily withdrew from civilized society the moment he struck the match. Nobody forced him. It was a conscious decision. He should have to live with the consequences.
He gave up his rights when he decided that the University's property rights had no value.
The University... They do have to live with the consequences, and they had no choice in the matter.
The.13 micron process uses less raw materials, which is a cost savings to the manufacturers.
The smaller die also results in a cooler running chip, which can result in a boon for performance.
The trouble, as archeopterix points out, is that this process requires a great deal of precision. Early yields will likely be prone to failures until the kinks are worked out. Once the line has been straightened out, the accountants will be pleased, as will the speed freaks.
How do we, as a society, benefit from creating a world where actions have little or no consequence?
Millions of dollars in damages, and the tally continues to grow for in-direct costs associated with the continued outage...
Lives were put at risk...
How is it good that this guy's liability is limited? How is it good that he can't go personally bankrupt?
He didn't accidentally set the place on fire with an errant cigarette butt (Which would be considered a mistake). He intentionally burned the place to the ground (Which would be considered a criminal act).
An Abacus! State-of-the-Art! We used to have to program in the dirt, with sticks! In a strong wind, or heaven forbid, a rain storm, all of our data was lost. Of course, we were soft even then.
In my father's day, they had it even worse. Dirt back then was still a bunch of really big rocks, as erosion hadn't yet been developed! And he was THANKFUL!
I know there are plenty of Wesley Crusher haters out there, but Wil Wheaton is a class act, and if people bother to read the link you posted, they'll be forced to come to the same conclusion.
Sorry they cut you Wil. I'm glad you got to have a good time during shooting. Best of luck.
Slashdot Mirror
So as not to alienate our Norwegian friends, here's a couple of items for the plus column:
That a product, program, or any tool for that matter, can be used to circumvent the law or do ill, does that mean that the tool is evil? Hardly. A tool is neither good nor bad, so long as it performs the task it was designed for in an adequate manner. Those kind of value judgements must be reserved for the person that employs that tool...
Is a gun inherently evil? Sure, there are many that use it for malicious purposes, but what about when the gun is in the lands of a legitimate authority? What about when it is in the hands of a potential rape victim?
Prosecute the Pirates. Prosecute the thieves. Don't buy materials from questionable sources. I'm not one of those people that thinks the "Industry" has no right to make a dollar. Still, the tool is not the problem. It is the people that choose to misuse it.
I don't think it is the company's right to determine how I use their product. If I have paid the same $22.00 for a DVD as my Windows using counterpart, how am I causing harm to Hollywood by viewing the movie on my own Linux running system? Have I hurt their revenue? Did I steal their intellectual property? Does my use of Linux automatically mean that I will decrypt their DVD, and spread it across the Internet free of charge?
What is the difference?
If anything, the movie industry should be going out of their way to put as many DVD players out there in the world as possible. They should have authored their own Linux DVD software, because it is beneficial to them to do so. The more players in existance, the more movies they are likely to sell. This seems evident to anyone with even a cursory understanding of economics.
Short of producing such a software player themselves, they certainly shouldn't mind that someone else has saved them the trouble.
The piracy issue is a strawman arguement. DeCSS doesn't make a DVD any more "pirateable." You needn't break the encryption in order to take a single DVD, and duplicate it. You can produce duplicates without even attempting to decrypt the software, simply by making a bit-for-bit copy.
What DeCSS does allow for is the conversion from one format to another... It allows you to take a DVD, and from it, procude VCDs, etc. That's hardly a threat though. They are lower density, and lower resolution. Nobody would rather have a VCD than the corresponding DVD. In any event, VCD production poses the most minor of threats to the revenue streams of the movie industry.
In any event, this is definately a new reason not to move to Norway. I had no idea that "Double Jeopardy" protection wasn't commonplace in most of the "Free" world.
You are a notable exception. What's it like being a rock star, and how great is it that you'll now be able to fully capitalize on your fame in the financial sense? Would you be in as promising a position today had you not run afoul of the law?
I agree with each of your points as to "Why strikeback is a bad idea," particularly from a legal perspective.
I concede that my thoughts on this topic are more concerned with the ethical/philisophical ramifications of electonic countermeasures, than with the legal ramifications of undertaking such actions.
I should have noted elsewhere, my citation of "No Duty to Retreat" wasn't intended to build a legal case for strikeback... I cited it more from the perspective of "here's a doctorine that is fairly widely recognized (if only in the US)" that I can get behind. I understand the doctorine, but what is more important in terms of the discussion, is that people understand the reasoning behind it.
If Jimmy Stewart were chiming in, I'm sure he'd say "That's all I can stand, and I'm not gonna take it any more!"
Again, great response...
From your statement, you make it sound as if anyone initiating an attack on you with a ranged weapon (Slingshot, Bow and Arrow, Crossbow, Catapult, Mortar, Firearm, Artillery Shell, Ballistic Missle, etc.) is in the clear. Is that your contention? That would be absurd.
In Virginia, if someone is shooting at you (Your life is in imminent danger), you may use any force necessary to repel the threat, up to, and including, deadly force. Additionally, you may use deadly force to defend the life of someone else (You don't have to be the person in jeopardy), although, in terms of this discussion, that's irrelevant, and would open up an entirely different can of worms.
(You *should* make a reasonable attempt to evade or avoid when in a public place, but in a case where you are already being shot at, I think the threshold of "reasonable" is dramatically lowered. Is it reasonable that you must turn your back to a firing gunman and flee? Not in my mind.)
But this is not a discussion about the use of deadly force, and in the end, we're not talking about taking the life of the system administrator that failed to install a system security patch.
We're talking about the use of a non-lethal electronic countermeasure against a system that is attempting to compromise a system that is your property (your computer), and wasting resources that you have paid for (bandwidth).
I cited "No Duty to Retreat" because of the similarities between the case for using force as a means of self-defense, and the use of an electronic countermeasure as a means of protecting your property.
I think it is unreasonable that I should be forced to endure damage to my property or degradation of resources that are rightfully mine so as to accommodate an attacker, unwitting though he may be. It elevates the rights of the attacker to a plane higher than that of my own rights, and that runs 180 degrees opposite to everything I believe.
(For those playing along at home, yes, I am a citizen of the United States. I realize that in other parts of the world, the notion of Rights can be viewed as a curious novelty. Just the same, in this country, Rights are supposed to be sacrosanct.)
You raise valid questions, and so have some others. Most of them, however, seem to think I'm out to shoot someone that sends an ICMP Echo Request in my general direction. :) As tempting as that may be, from time to time, we're not actually talking about killing anyone in this discussion.
How many DDOS attacks use IP spoofing? Probably a great many of them, but for most worms, IP spoofing is impossible, because the initiator in most cases needs to get responses back from the victim host. Using a spoofed IP address would make that nearly impossible.
Obviously, electronic countermeasures would have to be very specific. A set of counter responses would have to be tailored to counter a specific worm.
As an example, when NIMDA was running rampant, fully 5 months after appropriate patches had been offerred my Microsoft, and it was clear that there were a number of system administrators that had no interest in updating their systems, I put the NIMDA countermeasure on my system (I'd seen it posted here, as a matter of fact. That one had a problem, but I modified it to simply shut down the remote system, rather than disabling IIS first, and then attempting to shut down the system (That wouldn't have worked.)).
My logfiles were filled with invalid queries from infected systems... Hundreds of log lines per system. After employing the countermeasure, I'd get 5 or 6 lines in my log, and then silence from the infected host. My script left a message in the offender's log files stating that they were infected, and containing the URLs to all of the appropriate Microsoft documents, and the patches that needed to be installed.
Was I wrong to do so?
I'm sure there are plenty of people that think I was. I fully understand their perspective.
On the other hand, I think I was within my rights. It's pretty clear that 5 months after the outbreak, the people operating those systems were either unaware of the problem, or unconcerned about it's impact on others.
Let's say your auto manufacturer issues a recall about an unsafe braking system in your vehicle, directing you to take the vehicle into an authorized service center for corrective measures at no cost, and you choose not to do it. Months later, you experience a brake failure, and slam into another car. In my book, you're guilty of negligence.
I view the people that failed to patch their systems, 5 months after the NIMDA outbreak, when patches existed even prior to the NIMDA outbreak, in the same manner. Negligent. You've allowed your property to become a public hazard through inaction.
It isn't as if I built a scanner, to go out and sweep the Internet for people with infected systems, and attempted to shut hosts down at random. My script sat in wait. It retaliated only against systems that had brought the malicious code to bear on my system, and my bandwidth.
(As a result of NIMDA, to this day I am still unable to receive inbound connections on Port 80, because my ISP has set up filtering.)
I'm talking about disabling the offending instrament in an electronic attack... You're talking about damaging property completely unrelated to the attack.
I'm talking about protecting my own property. You're talking about destroying someone else's property.
As a consequence of my retaliation, they have to restart their server. As a consequence of your action, they have to find a new place to live, if they survive, that is.
You've illustrated the difference between self-defense, and vengeance.
Shocker you didn't sign your name. (Yeah, yeah... I have been trolled. I lost. Have a nice day.)
This concept relates to self-defense, and deadly force. Follow along with me...
If a person is in public, and is threatened, that person must make every reasonable effort to avoid the use of deadly force as a means of self defense, prior to useing such force. He must attempt to leave the scene, etc. In short, there is a Duty to Retreat.
If, however, that person is in his home, his own property, that person may use deadly force as a means of self defense without having to exhaust every means of escape or avoidance. On his own property, a person has No Duty to Retreat.
How is the scenario for Cyber-attack any different? Unlike most of the people commenting on this article, I believe you do have the right to take active measures in protecting your property.
Obviously, we're not talking about deadly force... We're simply talking about electronic countermeasures.
If an unsecured system on the Internet has been infected by a malicious program, and is now launching it's own attack against your system, your property, denying you the use of bandwidth or resources that you are paying for, I think you're perfectly within your rights to put the attack down, and if necessary, the offending system.
A person utilizing the Internet has a certain responsibility not to cause harm, either through action, or inaction. Most people on the Internet today seem tragically unaware of this. Without this, the Internet is ripe for a tragedy of the commons situation.
Is it wrong to still believe that with Rights come Responsibilities, or that with Priviledge comes Obligation?
Your rights to swing your arms around recklessly ends at the tip of your fingers, and at the beginning of my nose.
I think Tim Mullen is 100% correct, and I'm surprised there aren't more people that agree with him.
DVI's advantage over Firewire is that when an HD Receiver sends the video signal over DVI, it is an uncompressed signal.
With Firewire, there is a degree of compression, but it's largely a strawman arguement, as the compression/decompression is built into the Firewire controller.
Firewire is a far more versitle, in that it allows for data other than the video signal itself to traverse the wire, such as HAVi protocol, which Mitsubishi hopes will catch on. Devices on the Firewire chain announce themselves, and a common control protocol allows the Master device to control all of the others. (For instance, the TV can tell the VCR, or DVD player, to start the movie, or issue a pause, power on/off, etc. This allows for a better integrated universal remote control.)
Another reason to support Firewire over DVI is the whole DRM Holy War, although, Firewire has it's own Copy protection scheme (5C). It's simply not as draconian as the DVI proposal.
Most HD receviers are capable of receiving any of these formats. HD Monitors/HDTVs on the other hand, they are usually limited in which formats they can natively display.
My Mitsubishi, as an example, displays 480p and 1080i natively. A 720p signal is upconverted to 1080i by the recevier, prior to being tossed at the display.
It appears that DirecTV has finally decided to relax the Firewire restriction, and you'll be able to see HD DirecTV receviers with Firewire support. (Which will kick ass... My TV has Firewire.)
No clue what connections will come on the HD DirecTivo, but I sure hope to see them with Component Out, DVI, and Firewire, supporting both early adopters (Component In only), and both digital interfaces.
(I'd like DVI to die a horrible death, but I recognize that most HDTV buyers can olny get one, or the other, and there's no reason they (the people with DVI) should be left out on the cold.)
Are you talking about the "Gigastack" modules in the 2900 and 3500 Series switches?
Those other complaints are fine with me... This system isn't unique, it is ridiculously expensive, it doesn't use the latest components (for the CPU), and it's all been done before.
For those reasons, sure, maybe this doesn't rate being a feature on Slashdot.
But being too powerful for the average user? That's not the limtmus test I want to see used in determining what makes it on to Slashdot, just as I wouldn't want to read a magazine claiming to deal with high performance automobiles, only to find that it contained information solely about the latest offerring from Saturn, Kia, or Hyundai.
The Green Bay Packers (the *real* America's Team / F*** You, Dallas!) are from Wisconsin.
Christ almighty, read that site banner:
Slashdot: News for Nerds. Stuff that Matters.
Joe average, the guy you are describing, has no idea where to find Slashdot. I certainly don't read this site so that I can see what passes for "good enough" in non-technical circles.
I want to know about:
- the latest and greatest
- cool uses for existing technology
- technology used in ways that it was never intended
- things that have never been done before
Stop acting as if this is a site dedicated to the least common denominator. It's not, and if it ever becomes so, as you suggest, I'll go somewhere else. If you're looking for the former, go read C|net....25 other i-n-c-r-e-d-i-b-l-e things...
(repeat after me: "Always hit preview... Always hit preview... Always hit preview...")
Who says 10 other incdeible things couldn't happen in the next 11 hours and 51 minutes (by my clock, EST)?
If you are an arsonist, and you cause somebody millions of dollars worth of damage, then quite frankly, you deserve to dwell beneath the poverty line forever.
This guy voluntarily withdrew from civilized society the moment he struck the match. Nobody forced him. It was a conscious decision. He should have to live with the consequences.
He gave up his rights when he decided that the University's property rights had no value.
The University... They do have to live with the consequences, and they had no choice in the matter.
The .13 micron process uses less raw materials, which is a cost savings to the manufacturers.
The smaller die also results in a cooler running chip, which can result in a boon for performance.
The trouble, as archeopterix points out, is that this process requires a great deal of precision. Early yields will likely be prone to failures until the kinks are worked out. Once the line has been straightened out, the accountants will be pleased, as will the speed freaks.
How do we, as a society, benefit from creating a world where actions have little or no consequence?
Millions of dollars in damages, and the tally continues to grow for in-direct costs associated with the continued outage...
Lives were put at risk...
How is it good that this guy's liability is limited? How is it good that he can't go personally bankrupt?
He didn't accidentally set the place on fire with an errant cigarette butt (Which would be considered a mistake). He intentionally burned the place to the ground (Which would be considered a criminal act).
IMNSHO, your opinion sucks ass.
7 of 9 allowed that show to stay on the air much longer than it had any right to. Jerri Ryan was Voyager's salvation.
In my father's day, they had it even worse. Dirt back then was still a bunch of really big rocks, as erosion hadn't yet been developed! And he was THANKFUL!
Sorry they cut you Wil. I'm glad you got to have a good time during shooting. Best of luck.
This edition is 10 in the series, and is therefore, a must see.
Behold:
Damn that's funny... If I close my eyes, I can hear the '60!