How many people still watch OTA broadcasts?? If FCC mandated that everything be digital tomorrow and shut down the analog signal then what would happen? Digital to Analog converters would be needed by everyone who doesn't have one already. This does not make your TV obsolete. You just have to buy a new box. They won't be expensive either, really they won't. This is not HDTV. This is not Cable TV. This is not Satellite TV. This is OTA broadcasts. Digital transmissions will use much less bandwith than the current analog ones, the govn't really has a good reason to push this! But then again, you guys still use your inches and feet so I guess you're just stubborn like that. (joking.. joking.. I swear!)
This isn't entirely true. While Coca cola might calibrate the machine to put out stronger coke with less water, fast food resto owners can adjust it themselves (the instructions say to do so once a week). They often "water it down" a lot more than they're supposed to. The most watered down drinks are those where the customer fills his own glass, like at subway. You can actually see separate streams of clear water and syrup flowing into your cup.
It costs billions to change the process of a chip. They need to build new fabs, cope with a high defect rate and use components that are within tighter specifications. This is very expensive, would you spend this money for Apple users? (There aren't THAT many.) And if a 1Ghz Apple box is just as fast as a 2Ghz P4 then there really isn't much need except for those in video editing/professionals. That's an even smaller group of people.
Advantages of digital broadcasts: Clear picture even in less than perfect conditions. As long as the signal is above a certain threshold you will get PERFECT quality (perfect meaning how it's sent by the broadcaster). Of course when the signal reaches a certain level of degredation you get nothing (first lots of artifacts and blips, then quickly a black screen). This level of degredation also produces a mostly unwatchable picture with analog broadcasts.
Also, you're implying that the only content on TV are silly sitcoms and that content > quality. What about sports broadcasts? I saw HDTV screen shots of world cup soccer (broadcast in Australia I think) and they were stunning, it really was amazing.
As for DRM, the broadcasters do have a right to protect their content. YES THEY DO! Just because something has previously been unenforcable doesn't make it legal. While I don't think that Thursdays episode of Friends will be DRM'ed, the Sopranos on HBO will certainly be DRM protected, and why shouldn't it? It's a premium channel and it's for those who wish to pay for it. Why should you get it for free because your friend taped it and lent/gave it to you. (this is for the other reply.. but I don't feel like writing two replies.)
This is a good thing. The industry is stuck in old technology and no one wants to move forward. The electronics industries would love to sell new tv's to everyone. The broadcasters don't want to spend money upgrading equipment, sets, and they would also rather fit 5 crappy channels at standard definition than 1 crappy channel in high definition. The general public doesn't want to spend money on HDTV's or even digital TV's because there's not enough content off the air, or any other way. If digital receivers were integrated into the TV then at least broadcaster will know a large number of people (eventually) will be able to receive what they're broadcasting. And the price is really not an issue. When DirecTV first came out, the receiver/satellite kit was around $1000. Now they're around $100 for some models, and as low as $40 (subsidized). If the price starts at $200, the FCC is right in estimating about $16 in a few years. There are so many advantages to digital TV (not only HDTV) that it really is the smart thing to do. All the industry needs is someone to get them to swallow the initial bitter pill!
Don't the codecs adjust their alogrithms according to their bit rate? Is it possible that some encoders don't proportionally sound better at higher bit rates than other encoders? I believe this test reflects sound quality for 64kbps and nothing else since different methods are used in encoding at this bit rate compared to at 128kbps and higher.
Re:Serious Consequences fo InfoSec People
on
WarTalking Arrest
·
· Score: 1
"If you were in a bank with a locksmith, and he showed the bank manager that the locks they were using were insecure, the manager would thank the locksmith and change the locks."
What if the locksmith started snooping around with out permission and then tells the manager that his locks are insecure. If the manager checks the cameras and sees that the locksmith had been walking around in the supposedly locked vault, he would get arrested too.
Windows XP won't uninstall it, just remove links to it and I guess preventing it from opening. XP SP1 doesn't uninstall anything, it just removes links and associations.
So if I send an mp3 of a song that you have a copyright on through hotmail, then you can hack hotmail as long as the mp3 resides on their server.. cool.. Hell, if I send e-mails out with a copyright notice and one of em gets forwarded chain letter style against my permission then I can hack into mail servers with impunity!
No it doesn't.. you can use robots.txt to disable most search engines from putting your page into the search engine and cache. I've seen a few pages on google where no cache was available which leads me to think that there's a way to disable caching also. Also, all search engines have some sort of cache even if they don't show it to users. The search hits you get might be from something that was on your page two months ago that you since removed, that's the way it is. It's like buying a TV Guide and getting the wrong listings for a few time slots here and there.
Aside from MSN being forced down users throats in XP (It opens anytime you open Outlook Express, you can't disable that without knowing what you're doing) it's a good product. I tried AIM and it's really not that good. If all you want to do is message then fine it does the job. ICQ is good but it has too many useless features now. MSN has a less features but they're all good. One click video conferencing is nice, desktop collaboration is nice too, inviting someone to take over your desktop so they can troubleshoot for you is VERY nice. There are things I don't like about it though, you can't send a message to an offline user for example. Also you can change your name to easily.
I've noticed this with many sites that forward you to an ebay store page instead. It's very annoying. I think the server detects the googlebot and serves a different page (as well as instructing it not to cache the page) but for regular users it forwards you to the guys ebay store.
I was tempted to set up a linux box for my mom to use. All she does is surf the web and giving her a stable envrionment and giving her a restricted access would be nice. Then I realized that some of the sites she goes to uses ActiveX controls and she wouldn't be happy. Damn MS:) Damn them!
Re:They are a gazillion-dollar business
on
High Score
·
· Score: 1
damn you I was going to make that exact same comment, word for word!
You're paying for it to use it for your personal use. You can't just share it with your neighbours just like you can't share cable TV or satellite dishes, there is no valid argument as to why you should be able to share it off your property. NONE. I could see why you would want to do it for a short time as a lan party but then again most people won't be using the internet. It would be local traffic and to be fair you should disconnect the internet.
In outlook express you can view the source of the email and all the headers, usually you can find clues there like the actual e-mail address, the ip or at least the ISP.
Does someone want to let Bush know about this or is he stuck pandering to the "moral majority" that he must hold back the greatest achievements in human health that will come from stem cells in the next few decades? Was that a good sentence?
Slashdot Mirror
How many people still watch OTA broadcasts?? If FCC mandated that everything be digital tomorrow and shut down the analog signal then what would happen? Digital to Analog converters would be needed by everyone who doesn't have one already. This does not make your TV obsolete. You just have to buy a new box. They won't be expensive either, really they won't.
This is not HDTV.
This is not Cable TV.
This is not Satellite TV.
This is OTA broadcasts. Digital transmissions will use much less bandwith than the current analog ones, the govn't really has a good reason to push this!
But then again, you guys still use your inches and feet so I guess you're just stubborn like that. (joking.. joking.. I swear!)
This isn't entirely true. While Coca cola might calibrate the machine to put out stronger coke with less water, fast food resto owners can adjust it themselves (the instructions say to do so once a week). They often "water it down" a lot more than they're supposed to.
The most watered down drinks are those where the customer fills his own glass, like at subway. You can actually see separate streams of clear water and syrup flowing into your cup.
When I worked at a fast food joint I put in extra ice to rude customers. Maybe you should try being nicer. :)
It costs billions to change the process of a chip. They need to build new fabs, cope with a high defect rate and use components that are within tighter specifications. This is very expensive, would you spend this money for Apple users? (There aren't THAT many.) And if a 1Ghz Apple box is just as fast as a 2Ghz P4 then there really isn't much need except for those in video editing/professionals. That's an even smaller group of people.
Advantages of digital broadcasts: Clear picture even in less than perfect conditions. As long as the signal is above a certain threshold you will get PERFECT quality (perfect meaning how it's sent by the broadcaster). Of course when the signal reaches a certain level of degredation you get nothing (first lots of artifacts and blips, then quickly a black screen). This level of degredation also produces a mostly unwatchable picture with analog broadcasts.
Also, you're implying that the only content on TV are silly sitcoms and that content > quality. What about sports broadcasts? I saw HDTV screen shots of world cup soccer (broadcast in Australia I think) and they were stunning, it really was amazing.
As for DRM, the broadcasters do have a right to protect their content. YES THEY DO! Just because something has previously been unenforcable doesn't make it legal. While I don't think that Thursdays episode of Friends will be DRM'ed, the Sopranos on HBO will certainly be DRM protected, and why shouldn't it? It's a premium channel and it's for those who wish to pay for it. Why should you get it for free because your friend taped it and lent/gave it to you. (this is for the other reply.. but I don't feel like writing two replies.)
This is a good thing. The industry is stuck in old technology and no one wants to move forward. The electronics industries would love to sell new tv's to everyone. The broadcasters don't want to spend money upgrading equipment, sets, and they would also rather fit 5 crappy channels at standard definition than 1 crappy channel in high definition. The general public doesn't want to spend money on HDTV's or even digital TV's because there's not enough content off the air, or any other way. If digital receivers were integrated into the TV then at least broadcaster will know a large number of people (eventually) will be able to receive what they're broadcasting. And the price is really not an issue. When DirecTV first came out, the receiver/satellite kit was around $1000. Now they're around $100 for some models, and as low as $40 (subsidized). If the price starts at $200, the FCC is right in estimating about $16 in a few years.
There are so many advantages to digital TV (not only HDTV) that it really is the smart thing to do. All the industry needs is someone to get them to swallow the initial bitter pill!
Don't the codecs adjust their alogrithms according to their bit rate? Is it possible that some encoders don't proportionally sound better at higher bit rates than other encoders? I believe this test reflects sound quality for 64kbps and nothing else since different methods are used in encoding at this bit rate compared to at 128kbps and higher.
That's why I said "Do your part."
Revised: "Do your part and click on an ad at ZDNet and then buy something from the advertiser".
Yah I'm not buying anything.. you do it.
...and click on an ad at ZDNet.
"If you were in a bank with a locksmith, and he showed the bank manager that the locks they were using were insecure, the manager would thank the locksmith and change the locks."
What if the locksmith started snooping around with out permission and then tells the manager that his locks are insecure. If the manager checks the cameras and sees that the locksmith had been walking around in the supposedly locked vault, he would get arrested too.
What club did you go to?
Windows XP won't uninstall it, just remove links to it and I guess preventing it from opening. XP SP1 doesn't uninstall anything, it just removes links and associations.
So if I send an mp3 of a song that you have a copyright on through hotmail, then you can hack hotmail as long as the mp3 resides on their server.. cool.. Hell, if I send e-mails out with a copyright notice and one of em gets forwarded chain letter style against my permission then I can hack into mail servers with impunity!
No it doesn't.. you can use robots.txt to disable most search engines from putting your page into the search engine and cache. I've seen a few pages on google where no cache was available which leads me to think that there's a way to disable caching also. Also, all search engines have some sort of cache even if they don't show it to users. The search hits you get might be from something that was on your page two months ago that you since removed, that's the way it is. It's like buying a TV Guide and getting the wrong listings for a few time slots here and there.
Aside from MSN being forced down users throats in XP (It opens anytime you open Outlook Express, you can't disable that without knowing what you're doing) it's a good product. I tried AIM and it's really not that good. If all you want to do is message then fine it does the job. ICQ is good but it has too many useless features now. MSN has a less features but they're all good. One click video conferencing is nice, desktop collaboration is nice too, inviting someone to take over your desktop so they can troubleshoot for you is VERY nice. There are things I don't like about it though, you can't send a message to an offline user for example. Also you can change your name to easily.
and only Palladium can hold it up.. I think this is where he's going with it.
That Register article was way too biased.. I expect that from slashdot not from an internet news si-- oh wait nevermind.
You're not searching for ads, you're searching for content, who cares what ads you get.
I've noticed this with many sites that forward you to an ebay store page instead. It's very annoying. I think the server detects the googlebot and serves a different page (as well as instructing it not to cache the page) but for regular users it forwards you to the guys ebay store.
I was tempted to set up a linux box for my mom to use. All she does is surf the web and giving her a stable envrionment and giving her a restricted access would be nice. Then I realized that some of the sites she goes to uses ActiveX controls and she wouldn't be happy. Damn MS :) Damn them!
damn you I was going to make that exact same comment, word for word!
You're paying for it to use it for your personal use. You can't just share it with your neighbours just like you can't share cable TV or satellite dishes, there is no valid argument as to why you should be able to share it off your property. NONE. I could see why you would want to do it for a short time as a lan party but then again most people won't be using the internet. It would be local traffic and to be fair you should disconnect the internet.
In outlook express you can view the source of the email and all the headers, usually you can find clues there like the actual e-mail address, the ip or at least the ISP.
If your software sucks show a video or risk getting a BSOD.
Does someone want to let Bush know about this or is he stuck pandering to the "moral majority" that he must hold back the greatest achievements in human health that will come from stem cells in the next few decades?
Was that a good sentence?