So this is the Mac zealot perspective? Not 'Apple should do a better job producing software so PC computability is a non-issue', but instead 'Apple should drop PC computability altogether'. I suppose to look at it from the former perspective would be an admission of Apple's shortcomings as a software developer. We can't have that can we? Never mind the fact that many, many software developers have managed to produce titles for the Win platform . . . developers without the resources that Apple has.
Or is this a case of the high school kid who likes a band nobody has heard of and then gets pissed off when they get popular and all the "cool" kids start wearing the band's t-shirt?
Internet radio had such promise, but the medium is getting destroyed just as it started to get off the ground. The recording industry seems to be quite adept at trying to stop anything that would please their customers but damage their industry. Rather then trying to adapt it just tries to kill anything that it perceives as a threat.
Which sort of begs the question "Why do we need the recording industry around anyways?"
About the only thing they do that can be seen as a necessity these days is promotion, and traditional methods of getting bands on your label heard and seen are quickly becoming irrelevant. They pump millions getting their bands airtime on terrestrial radio, a medium that is increasingly pointless (due, in part, to the terrible stuff the record companies are trying to push) They spend huge amounts of money on producing music videos that will never be seen.
At yet none of these things are a necessity for a band to make it. The Internet is a fantastic replacement for these old fashioned practices.
As consumers, we can do our best to purchase independant, non RIAA member labels. For artists, it would be nice to see them stray more and more from signing with major labels and going with one that understands this new market and how to work it.
It's true that I am an American and this is my first GSM phone.
However, on the home theatre (where the noise is most prevalent), the noise occurs regardless of the input source. Furthermore, all but one of the input sources are transmitted via fiber optic cable. I can't imagine this is a flaw with the receiver; it's a higher end Marantz that should have a pretty decent power handling.
On the other hand, the noise never occurs in my car stereo, where the deck outputs six channels (L/R front, rear, lf) to amplifiers exclusively using non-balanced RCA type connectors.
Finally, the noise consistently occurs in my Tivoli tabletop radio, despite having nothing connected to it other than the power supply and the sat antenna.
In other words, I'm not sure that the cause is exclusively due unbalanced connectors.
Don't get me wrong; it's a minor problem that really doesn't bother me. It's just something I find curious.
I guess the question would be, would the initial high power broadcast be able to effect avionics equipment?
I've only seen the effects on audio electronics, but even if that's all it does, if I was seated in the first few rows of an aircraft it would be enough to interfere with the pilot's headsets. A minor interference, to be sure, but still noticeable.
Slightly off topic, but if there was some way I could figure out how to connect to and hack the ISS computers, I'd love to get in there and replace whatever is on the display to read simply "All of these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there".
I don't know exactly what's going on when a cell phone is transmitting data, or what or how that may interfere with instruments. I have, however, noticed something with my most recent phone which gives pause. In October of last year, I purchased a new Sony Ericson telephone. At the beginning of telephone calls (both incoming and outgoing) or when the phone connects to the Internet, some of the electronic audio devices in my house emit a low 'dee dee dee dee' tone. This has never happened with any other phone I've had.
It occurs with my home theater, computer speakers and desktop radio.
Now, if that can happen, I'm somewhat reluctant to accept that cell phones can't interfere with avionics equipment, if only to a small degree.
Then again, i kind of like the fact that I have at least one place where I have a valid excuse to not answer my phone.
Consider that one, many people do happen to have larger/high definition televisions and two, many of those people do not happen to have the knowledge to properly set up and operate a conventional HTPC, and the product makes sense.
Personally, I do have an HTPC with only an S-Video output and trying to use it for anything other then watch videos is an exercise in futility, despite my television being large and HD (standard text is barely readable at 800x600). Eventually I'll upgrade to a video out that supports HDMI or component video so I could actually use the Internet from my easy chair.
Neat. I just have to drive by the headquarters of some large company, poke around for an unsecured or poorly secured WAP, send massive amounts of spam with, oh, say pictures of kiddy porn with the subject "I know you'll like this!", and the company will be held liable for the criminal activities.
Let's see them modify the law to state "...will be held accountable unless you're a big company".
I guess that's ultimately what will happen, only with wording that will make it less obvious. Sadly, the United States always seems to legislate in ways that screw the citizen while protecting the corporate entity. But who knows; we all might get a free-be here.
That was pretty much my impression. The whole article seemed to be a "DRM is bad, so let's all point at MS Vista as the cause", without explaining or really understanding what DRM is or weather or not it's really a threat to the "freedom of the Internet".
As long as the OS handles non-DRM media I can't see it as a reasonable problem. Vista plays my mp3s that came from non-traceable sources (perhaps from ripped CDs, perhaps from some file sharing service . . . the OS doesn't know and doesn't care). At this point, it's not checking to see if I have a license to play a media file unless the file itself tells it to check.
If, by some chance, the operating system does start to limited what and how you can play your non DRM media, I'm not too terribly worried. I have faith that for any unreasonable countermeasures the OS may employ in the future that tries to screw with my media, a workaround will be coded and published on the Internet in short order.
All in all, it seems like a silly point to attack Vista on. According to my experiences with the OS, if you wanted to badmouth Vista you'd be far better off talking about how much it sucks, causes crashes, and makes you wish you'd have stuck with XP.
It wouldn't surprise me if Shatner decides no one is qualified to play a young him, demands a massive girdle, a shorter cut toupee and enough makeup to make Tammy Faye Baker blush and announce "I will play the young me!!"
That's a valid point, and not just for simulators. ATC itself could one day become computer controlled, but I can't imagine the pilots themselves finding it easier to interface with the ATC in any method other then voice.
Hearing 'Cactus 280, turn right heading two eight zero, climb and maintain 28 thousand feet' and responding via voice 'roger, 280, climb and maintain 28 thousand, Cactus 280' would be a heck of a lot easier then watching out for an 'incoming message' light, looking down at a display and then typing a confirmation message . . . all while you're trying to turn your aircraft and set a new altitude.
The ATC itself could all be managed by computer and offer a simulated voice and a voice recognition interface. It could be argued that a computer run ATC (under the direction of a human) would be more efficient then the current manned stations, but as long as we have pilots in the air making decisions (which isn't likely to change), a voice interface would still be the best option.
I realized halfway through reading this that, much like the problem the author faces when a film references some technology that is impossible and ruins the movie, I too was getting irked at the author's misconceptions surrounding film and technology.
3D is stupid in movies (even movies about the future) because 2D works better? Really? He can know without a shadow of a doubt that we'll never develop a 3D interface that is more efficient or easier to use (or both) then a traditional 2D one?
It would be like him complaining about a movie shot in 1979 about the future that shows everyone talking on wireless phones. He'd write something like "Even if we could make mobile wireless communications possible, the cost would be so high that your average man on the street couldn't afford it".
The thing about movies that take place in the future is that you can allow for a little leeway under the assumption that it could, perhaps, be made possible many years from now. Just because 3D user interfaces or virtual reality is the stuff of trade shows today doesn't mean they'll be that way tommorow. While it's hard to perceive the 3D/VR as usable today, we simply don't know what sort of thing could happen in the future.
He complains about the 'Access Granted' message that finds its way into movies. To me, that's a minor fault. What really gets me (and what he ignores), is the fact that in movies, a person can have nothing to go off of except a user/pass screen, and a skilled 'hacker' can gain access in short order (while an unskilled one has no chance of getting in). Also, this skilled hacker can give a realistic time frame of how long it's going to take to break into a system with just a user/pass. "This is a protected system. It'll take me 8 minutes to gain access". Are we to guess that the movie hacker knows exactly how long it'll take before he guesses the password?
Probably the number one thing I read that convinced me that the guy doesn't really know what he's talking about was in his complaint that there was no way a 12 year old could know Unix. Does he not realize that young children might actually know something about computers? When I was 12, I knew how to program in BASIC on my old Apple//e, and was starting to get into working with machine language. I'm pretty sure that if I was born 15 years later, by 12 years old I'd understand a Unix based OS pretty well (not well enough to access and modify proprietary security systems, something he was right on), but it's just silly to assume that something is impossible for a kid to do but an adult could handle it.
Finally, how could he possibly fault the voice controlled computers in Star Trek? Remember, this is a show about the future. It's quite possible that in another hundred years or so, most functions of a computer could be controlled by voice command. Don't forget that the Enterprise's computer could also be accessed via touch based consoles.
whose only compelling feature is its rather excellent UI
And I think that's it. There's nothing here that hasn't been done before, or been available for some time. Sure, you're going to see some Apple branded features like iTV, but I've yet to see how that's really that much better then similier things under a different format.
The only things that can elevate Apple above the competition are the same things they've been doing for some time: An easy and intuitive user interface and product design. Both of which I personally find lacking in what the current market offers. Their iPhone and whatever other devices they're planning on developing have to be easier to use and better looking then the competition, because otherwise, what could possibly make the products worthwhile? Especially considering Apple's habit of putting products out at a higher price point then their competitors.
Patient: "No. Please no. For the love of god, don't put me in a room with that thing!"
Nurse: "Oh don't be a baby Mr. Yamoto, it's for your own good."
The robot looks at the patient and its eyes start to glow red.
Patient: "Anything but the robot seal! Anything! I'm begging you, please no!"
Nurse: "There's nothing to be afraid of. The seal just wants to be petted and help you"
The robot turns to the nurse and gives him an adorable, innocent expression.
Nurse: "See? Its harmless. The seal couldn't hurt a flea!"
The robot turns back to the patient and opens its mouth, revealing razor sharp steel teeth and a small amount of blood draining from the corner of its mouth.
The nurse shuts the patient in a small room with the seal. There's the sound of loud screaming for the next ten minutes, followed by silence.
Nurse (as he drags the patient's bloody corpse from the room): "Ahh, this new robot is great! Takes care of the fussy old folks like nobody's business!"
Run Linux on a 386 with 4 megs of ram using Elm to check your email, Lynx to browse web pages and have IrcII installed for messaging, and you're closer to the idea. Actually, a 386 might be a little overkill for that.
I don't know about all Slashdotters, but I sure do. It's just easier, as others have pointed out, to simply look at your wrist to check the time instead of trying to find your cell phone.
There's also an appeal in having a piece of technology that's functional, isn't prone to errors, and works using age old technology.
In the last decade or so, I've actually taken to collecting watches. Next to computers and stereo equipment, it's my biggest expensive hobby. I have a beautiful old Hamilton and a decent Timex that are over 50 years old and are powered entirely by me. No batteries, no plugging it in or worrying about if I remembered to bring a charger. I just wind it up every day and it keeps time accurately enough for me. I have a Rolex that is powered completely by the motion of my wrist doing it's normal, every day activities. It's just neat having something mechanical that has no electrical components whatsoever. And even on the electrical front, I have a Citizens with their 'eco drive', which is completely solar powered.
I also have several battery operated watches, which are good for other reasons. I have a Victorlux with a built in chronograph; something I've found useful on a number of occasions. I even have one of the original Casio calculator watches (the only digital watch I own), which is just neat to have. When I wear it, I'm often complimented on it by other nerds. And as a bonus, it really is a functioning calculator that's a lot easier to access then to pull out my cell phone, go through a few menus and find the calculator application.
And one thing to remember: Watches are, in essense, jewelery. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two acceptable pieces of jewelery a man can wear: A wedding ring and a wristwatch. Three, if you're into cufflinks. They're coming back, just ask Steven Colbert. But I don't think many slashdotters find themselves in situations to wear them. The way I figure it, why not have something nice strapped to your wrist? As it stands, the only peice of technology a lot of people are willing to wear these days is a bluetooth earpiece. While I have one and find it very useful, I think it looks pretty stupid. I personally feel pretty dang good about having a peice of tech on my wrist which serves an important function and looks pretty nice.
I'm also happy to hear about there being more watchmakers around. I have a (battery powered) gold Omega I inherited from my father that hasn't worked in decades. I haven't been able to find anyone in town who could work on it. "We have to send back to the factory" is the only response anyone can give me. Perhaps if we start having more master watchmakers around, more folk who know how to work on these pieces of technology, getting them repaired will be a little easier.
In the past month, I've learned about how a robot has developed a taste for human flesh (tastes like bacon, says the robot) and now this. I'm excited for the future, sure, but I'm also a little concerned. It's safe to assume that in another 20 years, robots will be everywhere. It'll likely be the next giant technological leap, now that we've all grown to adopt the personal computer and the Internet. As a general rule I like technological progress, not to mention the fact that I've always thought robots were pretty cool.
But it's becoming apparent that tomorrow's robots won't be polite and gay, like C3P0. They're going to end up crude and destructive, like Bender from Futurama. We're already at the point where we have to worry about robots eating us. According to this article, we now have to worry about robots throwing food at us, trying to make time with our women, questioning our sexuality in public, and stealing our booze and cigarettes. In tomorrow's world, it won't be factory workers concerned about losing their jobs to robots, it'll be our hard working slackers. The day will come when my scrounging buddy asks to bum a smoke or for another beer, and we'll have to tell him 'Oh, sorry man. I gave my last one to the robot'. Then he'll try to punch the robot in the stomach but will break his hand on the hard steel while the robot flings insulting remarks at him followed by cherries.
Some day I hope to have kids. Can you imagine how difficult it will be if I discover my daughter is dating a robot? I can see it now, as my sweet child looks up to me with her innocent wide eyes and says "Daddy, I want you to meet my boyfriend Altair 3814". The frustration will be maddening. If I say a single disparaging remark about her new beau, my robot heart and liver will think I'm prejudiced and refuse to work. "I ain't going to keep some asshole humey (yes, they'll call us 'humies') alive if he's gonna put down my robot brothers" they'll say. So I'll have to just smile nervously as my beautiful baby girl displays her affection towards some machine in my home, and live in constant fear of her getting zapped with lasers by some female robot pissed off because "all the good robot men are chasing humey tail. I'll show those bio-sacks not to mess with our boys"
Really.
My only hope now is that Skynet becomes self aware before my daughter reaches puberty, and slaughters us all in the first wave of the robot wars. Sure, we'll all be dead, but at least I'll never have to suffer countless indignities at the hands of uppity robots.
I've noticed now how nitpicky Windows XP has become about the authenticity of itself installed on a computer. For a while now, users of XP who want to update have to go through an annoying 'genuine validation' process. At certain points, Windows will simply not have access to software updates until MS is convinced that they'll go on a legal copy of their software.
So now, every few months they can come up with a new authentication scheme, and a week after they are introduced (and before they are cracked), Microsoft unleashes some sinister exploit that promises to do terrible things. When the user with a questionably authentic copy of Windows/Office/etc. goes to download the security patch for this exploit, he or she isn't allowed to do so due to the inability to validate the copy of the software as 'genuine'.
So the average Windows user who has a pirated copy is given the choice to either pay for the software or face some giant threat to their computers.
I can recall when the RIAA/MPAA was cracking down on P2P services, proponents of these services argued that they were beneficial for distributing perfectly legitimate files and media (As a distribution channel, for example, for unsigned bands trying to be heard). It wasn't a very compelling argument, at least to the media companies, and they stayed on track in their attempt to demonize P2P services.
And why shouldn't they? The services did nothing that could make them any money. In most cases, P2P did little more then, in their eyes, lose them money threw theft. In cases where the services were offering perfectly legitimate files, all P2P could do is threaten their pre-existing distribution channels, costing them money due to competition.
But if the media companies employ torrents as a means to distribute their wares, they really can't paint the service as being evil. Sure, they'll always try to vilify media pirates, but now they'll be unable to point their finger at torrents and claim that the distribution service is used exclusivly for trafficking pirated materials.
Wait what? I just got a fancy new AMD duel core CPU a few months ago, and you're saying they have systems out there that can outperform it by a magnitude of tens of thousands?
Gosh. I knew my PC would be obsolete, but I didn't realize it would be this soon. I'll be out by the dumpster crying.
Currently I've a Windows box with quite a bit of media (both video/movies and mp3s) on its HDD. I have an S-video cable and a fiber optic cable running some 30 feet from the desktop to my AV receiver.
It works alright, and the quality is pretty decent, but it's somewhat clunky to use as a true HTPC. I literally have to drag media player into the other display and maximize it to watch anything. From where it's situated, I don't have line of sight for the remote in my normal TV viewing location (my Harmony can't even reach it), and even if I could I wouldn't know where to start to find a decent software front end to control the HT.
This appears to be a pretty decent solution. Just a set top box I can put with all my other A/V equipment that does everything I need. The PVR feature would be a significant bonus.
However, I'm not too knowledgeable about Linux powered HTPCs, and I'm going off several assumptions which may or may not actually be true:
1. Out of the box, the system will be configured to send proper audio streams to the receiver, without stripping DTS/Dolby Digital out of the source audio.
2. The interface (both the GUI and command line) will be clear and readable on the TV if I'm running component video from the HTPC to my receiver and then to the display. It also will allow me to easily browse and select various media I want to play.
3. I'll be able to network the device and either stream media, or copy that media and store it locally, read from my Windows box's HDD. Also, it'll be able to decode and play various file formats (AVI/MPG etc.) as well as be able to download various codecs (like Divx).
4. It can run remote shells, just so I can enjoy the novelty of being on IRC from my HTPC.
If my first three assumptions are correct, I'd say it's highly likely I'll be picking this (or something like it) up in the near future.
Slashdot Mirror
So this is the Mac zealot perspective? Not 'Apple should do a better job producing software so PC computability is a non-issue', but instead 'Apple should drop PC computability altogether'. I suppose to look at it from the former perspective would be an admission of Apple's shortcomings as a software developer. We can't have that can we? Never mind the fact that many, many software developers have managed to produce titles for the Win platform . . . developers without the resources that Apple has.
Or is this a case of the high school kid who likes a band nobody has heard of and then gets pissed off when they get popular and all the "cool" kids start wearing the band's t-shirt?
Internet radio had such promise, but the medium is getting destroyed just as it started to get off the ground. The recording industry seems to be quite adept at trying to stop anything that would please their customers but damage their industry. Rather then trying to adapt it just tries to kill anything that it perceives as a threat.
Which sort of begs the question "Why do we need the recording industry around anyways?"
About the only thing they do that can be seen as a necessity these days is promotion, and traditional methods of getting bands on your label heard and seen are quickly becoming irrelevant. They pump millions getting their bands airtime on terrestrial radio, a medium that is increasingly pointless (due, in part, to the terrible stuff the record companies are trying to push) They spend huge amounts of money on producing music videos that will never be seen.
At yet none of these things are a necessity for a band to make it. The Internet is a fantastic replacement for these old fashioned practices.
As consumers, we can do our best to purchase independant, non RIAA member labels. For artists, it would be nice to see them stray more and more from signing with major labels and going with one that understands this new market and how to work it.
It's true that I am an American and this is my first GSM phone.
However, on the home theatre (where the noise is most prevalent), the noise occurs regardless of the input source. Furthermore, all but one of the input sources are transmitted via fiber optic cable. I can't imagine this is a flaw with the receiver; it's a higher end Marantz that should have a pretty decent power handling.
On the other hand, the noise never occurs in my car stereo, where the deck outputs six channels (L/R front, rear, lf) to amplifiers exclusively using non-balanced RCA type connectors.
Finally, the noise consistently occurs in my Tivoli tabletop radio, despite having nothing connected to it other than the power supply and the sat antenna.
In other words, I'm not sure that the cause is exclusively due unbalanced connectors.
Don't get me wrong; it's a minor problem that really doesn't bother me. It's just something I find curious.
I guess the question would be, would the initial high power broadcast be able to effect avionics equipment?
I've only seen the effects on audio electronics, but even if that's all it does, if I was seated in the first few rows of an aircraft it would be enough to interfere with the pilot's headsets. A minor interference, to be sure, but still noticeable.
Slightly off topic, but if there was some way I could figure out how to connect to and hack the ISS computers, I'd love to get in there and replace whatever is on the display to read simply "All of these worlds are yours except Europa. Attempt no landing there".
It'd have a fun effect, to be sure.
I don't know exactly what's going on when a cell phone is transmitting data, or what or how that may interfere with instruments. I have, however, noticed something with my most recent phone which gives pause. In October of last year, I purchased a new Sony Ericson telephone. At the beginning of telephone calls (both incoming and outgoing) or when the phone connects to the Internet, some of the electronic audio devices in my house emit a low 'dee dee dee dee' tone. This has never happened with any other phone I've had.
It occurs with my home theater, computer speakers and desktop radio.
Now, if that can happen, I'm somewhat reluctant to accept that cell phones can't interfere with avionics equipment, if only to a small degree.
Then again, i kind of like the fact that I have at least one place where I have a valid excuse to not answer my phone.
You're kind of missing the point here.
Consider that one, many people do happen to have larger/high definition televisions and two, many of those people do not happen to have the knowledge to properly set up and operate a conventional HTPC, and the product makes sense.
Personally, I do have an HTPC with only an S-Video output and trying to use it for anything other then watch videos is an exercise in futility, despite my television being large and HD (standard text is barely readable at 800x600). Eventually I'll upgrade to a video out that supports HDMI or component video so I could actually use the Internet from my easy chair.
Neat. I just have to drive by the headquarters of some large company, poke around for an unsecured or poorly secured WAP, send massive amounts of spam with, oh, say pictures of kiddy porn with the subject "I know you'll like this!", and the company will be held liable for the criminal activities.
Let's see them modify the law to state "...will be held accountable unless you're a big company".
I guess that's ultimately what will happen, only with wording that will make it less obvious. Sadly, the United States always seems to legislate in ways that screw the citizen while protecting the corporate entity. But who knows; we all might get a free-be here.
That was pretty much my impression. The whole article seemed to be a "DRM is bad, so let's all point at MS Vista as the cause", without explaining or really understanding what DRM is or weather or not it's really a threat to the "freedom of the Internet".
As long as the OS handles non-DRM media I can't see it as a reasonable problem. Vista plays my mp3s that came from non-traceable sources (perhaps from ripped CDs, perhaps from some file sharing service . . . the OS doesn't know and doesn't care). At this point, it's not checking to see if I have a license to play a media file unless the file itself tells it to check.
If, by some chance, the operating system does start to limited what and how you can play your non DRM media, I'm not too terribly worried. I have faith that for any unreasonable countermeasures the OS may employ in the future that tries to screw with my media, a workaround will be coded and published on the Internet in short order.
All in all, it seems like a silly point to attack Vista on. According to my experiences with the OS, if you wanted to badmouth Vista you'd be far better off talking about how much it sucks, causes crashes, and makes you wish you'd have stuck with XP.
It wouldn't surprise me if Shatner decides no one is qualified to play a young him, demands a massive girdle, a shorter cut toupee and enough makeup to make Tammy Faye Baker blush and announce "I will play the young me!!"
That's a valid point, and not just for simulators. ATC itself could one day become computer controlled, but I can't imagine the pilots themselves finding it easier to interface with the ATC in any method other then voice.
Hearing 'Cactus 280, turn right heading two eight zero, climb and maintain 28 thousand feet' and responding via voice 'roger, 280, climb and maintain 28 thousand, Cactus 280' would be a heck of a lot easier then watching out for an 'incoming message' light, looking down at a display and then typing a confirmation message . . . all while you're trying to turn your aircraft and set a new altitude.
The ATC itself could all be managed by computer and offer a simulated voice and a voice recognition interface. It could be argued that a computer run ATC (under the direction of a human) would be more efficient then the current manned stations, but as long as we have pilots in the air making decisions (which isn't likely to change), a voice interface would still be the best option.
I realized halfway through reading this that, much like the problem the author faces when a film references some technology that is impossible and ruins the movie, I too was getting irked at the author's misconceptions surrounding film and technology.
//e, and was starting to get into working with machine language. I'm pretty sure that if I was born 15 years later, by 12 years old I'd understand a Unix based OS pretty well (not well enough to access and modify proprietary security systems, something he was right on), but it's just silly to assume that something is impossible for a kid to do but an adult could handle it.
3D is stupid in movies (even movies about the future) because 2D works better? Really? He can know without a shadow of a doubt that we'll never develop a 3D interface that is more efficient or easier to use (or both) then a traditional 2D one?
It would be like him complaining about a movie shot in 1979 about the future that shows everyone talking on wireless phones. He'd write something like "Even if we could make mobile wireless communications possible, the cost would be so high that your average man on the street couldn't afford it".
The thing about movies that take place in the future is that you can allow for a little leeway under the assumption that it could, perhaps, be made possible many years from now. Just because 3D user interfaces or virtual reality is the stuff of trade shows today doesn't mean they'll be that way tommorow. While it's hard to perceive the 3D/VR as usable today, we simply don't know what sort of thing could happen in the future.
He complains about the 'Access Granted' message that finds its way into movies. To me, that's a minor fault. What really gets me (and what he ignores), is the fact that in movies, a person can have nothing to go off of except a user/pass screen, and a skilled 'hacker' can gain access in short order (while an unskilled one has no chance of getting in). Also, this skilled hacker can give a realistic time frame of how long it's going to take to break into a system with just a user/pass. "This is a protected system. It'll take me 8 minutes to gain access". Are we to guess that the movie hacker knows exactly how long it'll take before he guesses the password?
Probably the number one thing I read that convinced me that the guy doesn't really know what he's talking about was in his complaint that there was no way a 12 year old could know Unix. Does he not realize that young children might actually know something about computers? When I was 12, I knew how to program in BASIC on my old Apple
Finally, how could he possibly fault the voice controlled computers in Star Trek? Remember, this is a show about the future. It's quite possible that in another hundred years or so, most functions of a computer could be controlled by voice command. Don't forget that the Enterprise's computer could also be accessed via touch based consoles.
whose only compelling feature is its rather excellent UI
And I think that's it. There's nothing here that hasn't been done before, or been available for some time. Sure, you're going to see some Apple branded features like iTV, but I've yet to see how that's really that much better then similier things under a different format.
The only things that can elevate Apple above the competition are the same things they've been doing for some time: An easy and intuitive user interface and product design. Both of which I personally find lacking in what the current market offers. Their iPhone and whatever other devices they're planning on developing have to be easier to use and better looking then the competition, because otherwise, what could possibly make the products worthwhile? Especially considering Apple's habit of putting products out at a higher price point then their competitors.
I have this image in my mind.
Nurse: "Mr. Yamoto, it's time for your therapy"
The adorable robot seal flops into the room.
Patient: "No. Please no. For the love of god, don't put me in a room with that thing!"
Nurse: "Oh don't be a baby Mr. Yamoto, it's for your own good."
The robot looks at the patient and its eyes start to glow red.
Patient: "Anything but the robot seal! Anything! I'm begging you, please no!"
Nurse: "There's nothing to be afraid of. The seal just wants to be petted and help you"
The robot turns to the nurse and gives him an adorable, innocent expression.
Nurse: "See? Its harmless. The seal couldn't hurt a flea!"
The robot turns back to the patient and opens its mouth, revealing razor sharp steel teeth and a small amount of blood draining from the corner of its mouth.
The nurse shuts the patient in a small room with the seal. There's the sound of loud screaming for the next ten minutes, followed by silence.
Nurse (as he drags the patient's bloody corpse from the room): "Ahh, this new robot is great! Takes care of the fussy old folks like nobody's business!"
Well, sort of.
Run Linux on a 386 with 4 megs of ram using Elm to check your email, Lynx to browse web pages and have IrcII installed for messaging, and you're closer to the idea. Actually, a 386 might be a little overkill for that.
Do Slashdotters still wear watches?
I don't know about all Slashdotters, but I sure do. It's just easier, as others have pointed out, to simply look at your wrist to check the time instead of trying to find your cell phone.
There's also an appeal in having a piece of technology that's functional, isn't prone to errors, and works using age old technology.
In the last decade or so, I've actually taken to collecting watches. Next to computers and stereo equipment, it's my biggest expensive hobby. I have a beautiful old Hamilton and a decent Timex that are over 50 years old and are powered entirely by me. No batteries, no plugging it in or worrying about if I remembered to bring a charger. I just wind it up every day and it keeps time accurately enough for me. I have a Rolex that is powered completely by the motion of my wrist doing it's normal, every day activities. It's just neat having something mechanical that has no electrical components whatsoever. And even on the electrical front, I have a Citizens with their 'eco drive', which is completely solar powered.
I also have several battery operated watches, which are good for other reasons. I have a Victorlux with a built in chronograph; something I've found useful on a number of occasions. I even have one of the original Casio calculator watches (the only digital watch I own), which is just neat to have. When I wear it, I'm often complimented on it by other nerds. And as a bonus, it really is a functioning calculator that's a lot easier to access then to pull out my cell phone, go through a few menus and find the calculator application.
And one thing to remember: Watches are, in essense, jewelery. As far as I'm concerned, there are only two acceptable pieces of jewelery a man can wear: A wedding ring and a wristwatch. Three, if you're into cufflinks. They're coming back, just ask Steven Colbert. But I don't think many slashdotters find themselves in situations to wear them. The way I figure it, why not have something nice strapped to your wrist? As it stands, the only peice of technology a lot of people are willing to wear these days is a bluetooth earpiece. While I have one and find it very useful, I think it looks pretty stupid. I personally feel pretty dang good about having a peice of tech on my wrist which serves an important function and looks pretty nice.
I'm also happy to hear about there being more watchmakers around. I have a (battery powered) gold Omega I inherited from my father that hasn't worked in decades. I haven't been able to find anyone in town who could work on it. "We have to send back to the factory" is the only response anyone can give me. Perhaps if we start having more master watchmakers around, more folk who know how to work on these pieces of technology, getting them repaired will be a little easier.
Perhaps, but the Daily Growl is not a reputable journal of opinion.
In the past month, I've learned about how a robot has developed a taste for human flesh (tastes like bacon, says the robot) and now this. I'm excited for the future, sure, but I'm also a little concerned. It's safe to assume that in another 20 years, robots will be everywhere. It'll likely be the next giant technological leap, now that we've all grown to adopt the personal computer and the Internet. As a general rule I like technological progress, not to mention the fact that I've always thought robots were pretty cool.
But it's becoming apparent that tomorrow's robots won't be polite and gay, like C3P0. They're going to end up crude and destructive, like Bender from Futurama. We're already at the point where we have to worry about robots eating us. According to this article, we now have to worry about robots throwing food at us, trying to make time with our women, questioning our sexuality in public, and stealing our booze and cigarettes. In tomorrow's world, it won't be factory workers concerned about losing their jobs to robots, it'll be our hard working slackers. The day will come when my scrounging buddy asks to bum a smoke or for another beer, and we'll have to tell him 'Oh, sorry man. I gave my last one to the robot'. Then he'll try to punch the robot in the stomach but will break his hand on the hard steel while the robot flings insulting remarks at him followed by cherries.
Some day I hope to have kids. Can you imagine how difficult it will be if I discover my daughter is dating a robot? I can see it now, as my sweet child looks up to me with her innocent wide eyes and says "Daddy, I want you to meet my boyfriend Altair 3814". The frustration will be maddening. If I say a single disparaging remark about her new beau, my robot heart and liver will think I'm prejudiced and refuse to work. "I ain't going to keep some asshole humey (yes, they'll call us 'humies') alive if he's gonna put down my robot brothers" they'll say. So I'll have to just smile nervously as my beautiful baby girl displays her affection towards some machine in my home, and live in constant fear of her getting zapped with lasers by some female robot pissed off because "all the good robot men are chasing humey tail. I'll show those bio-sacks not to mess with our boys"
Really.
My only hope now is that Skynet becomes self aware before my daughter reaches puberty, and slaughters us all in the first wave of the robot wars. Sure, we'll all be dead, but at least I'll never have to suffer countless indignities at the hands of uppity robots.
No, it means we were almost dead two hours ago.
I've noticed now how nitpicky Windows XP has become about the authenticity of itself installed on a computer. For a while now, users of XP who want to update have to go through an annoying 'genuine validation' process. At certain points, Windows will simply not have access to software updates until MS is convinced that they'll go on a legal copy of their software.
So now, every few months they can come up with a new authentication scheme, and a week after they are introduced (and before they are cracked), Microsoft unleashes some sinister exploit that promises to do terrible things. When the user with a questionably authentic copy of Windows/Office/etc. goes to download the security patch for this exploit, he or she isn't allowed to do so due to the inability to validate the copy of the software as 'genuine'.
So the average Windows user who has a pirated copy is given the choice to either pay for the software or face some giant threat to their computers.
True, but HDDVD could be said as "H Double-D Vee-Dee"
This conjures up images of large breasts (the double-d) and STDs (V.D.) Also, I've heard that some junkies refer to heroin simply as "H".
So, if said in the right way, HDDDVD could be interperated as "Herion, gigantic boobs, venereal disease"
It might not be the image HD-DVD manufacturers are looking for, but it'd sound good (properly used) in a gangsta' rap song.
I can recall when the RIAA/MPAA was cracking down on P2P services, proponents of these services argued that they were beneficial for distributing perfectly legitimate files and media (As a distribution channel, for example, for unsigned bands trying to be heard). It wasn't a very compelling argument, at least to the media companies, and they stayed on track in their attempt to demonize P2P services.
And why shouldn't they? The services did nothing that could make them any money. In most cases, P2P did little more then, in their eyes, lose them money threw theft. In cases where the services were offering perfectly legitimate files, all P2P could do is threaten their pre-existing distribution channels, costing them money due to competition.
But if the media companies employ torrents as a means to distribute their wares, they really can't paint the service as being evil. Sure, they'll always try to vilify media pirates, but now they'll be unable to point their finger at torrents and claim that the distribution service is used exclusivly for trafficking pirated materials.
Wait what? I just got a fancy new AMD duel core CPU a few months ago, and you're saying they have systems out there that can outperform it by a magnitude of tens of thousands?
Gosh. I knew my PC would be obsolete, but I didn't realize it would be this soon. I'll be out by the dumpster crying.
It always amazes me how fast the shuttle gets up into space, and how quickly it reaches amazing speeds.
So, I guess the question is "How fast can Atlantis make the Kessel Run?" My gues is at least 30 parsecs.
This may be just the ticket.
Currently I've a Windows box with quite a bit of media (both video/movies and mp3s) on its HDD. I have an S-video cable and a fiber optic cable running some 30 feet from the desktop to my AV receiver.
It works alright, and the quality is pretty decent, but it's somewhat clunky to use as a true HTPC. I literally have to drag media player into the other display and maximize it to watch anything. From where it's situated, I don't have line of sight for the remote in my normal TV viewing location (my Harmony can't even reach it), and even if I could I wouldn't know where to start to find a decent software front end to control the HT.
This appears to be a pretty decent solution. Just a set top box I can put with all my other A/V equipment that does everything I need. The PVR feature would be a significant bonus.
However, I'm not too knowledgeable about Linux powered HTPCs, and I'm going off several assumptions which may or may not actually be true:
1. Out of the box, the system will be configured to send proper audio streams to the receiver, without stripping DTS/Dolby Digital out of the source audio.
2. The interface (both the GUI and command line) will be clear and readable on the TV if I'm running component video from the HTPC to my receiver and then to the display. It also will allow me to easily browse and select various media I want to play.
3. I'll be able to network the device and either stream media, or copy that media and store it locally, read from my Windows box's HDD. Also, it'll be able to decode and play various file formats (AVI/MPG etc.) as well as be able to download various codecs (like Divx).
4. It can run remote shells, just so I can enjoy the novelty of being on IRC from my HTPC.
If my first three assumptions are correct, I'd say it's highly likely I'll be picking this (or something like it) up in the near future.