I think if you actually found yourself on the other side of this, the actual victim of a crime, or worse yet, your wife, husband, son or daughter in a situation, the reality of it might change your mind.
It might, but most humans' perception of things change when the situation changes. I still don't think it's a good idea to make rash decisions based on some recent event that hurt us.
Prime example is airport "security". Everyone went crazy after 9/11, and of course the vast majority of the measures currently in place would not have stopped what happened. And if these measures were in place in 2001, the hijackers would have done something different.
But when it was fresh in people's minds, implementing more "security" at airports sounded good all of a sudden. Nevermind what a pain in the ass it is to fly 2.5 years later, with no real amount of added security.
We can always look back at a situation and say "gee, if only I had done this, that wouldn't have happened", but guess what? That's life. No matter what you do to prevent something from happening, something else you couldn't have conceived may just happen instead.
So let's say in a few years, cameras are everywhere. Fine, but the criminals know this as well as we do, and will find other ways to get away with what they're doing. The ones who, today, would have been caught by the cameras, knew enough to find another way to kidnap my family without being seen; thus, it still wouldn't have helped.
Meanwhile I forget to pay a parking ticket and am tracked down immediately.
[re: e-pass at toll booths]... if a rich town majority wants it.. I think that is somewhat different. It may be a bad idea but the public has a right to make bad decisions;)
Agreed, if they (the bad-decision-making part of the public) are the only ones paying for it. I have no problem with someone spending their own money unwisely. What's unwise to me may be a good solution for them, and that's their right.
I'm of the opinion that taxes should be much more localized than they are. We all pay for schools, whether or not we ever have children. We all pay for roads, even if we don't drive.
However -- I do believe that money collected at toll booths (manual or e-pass) is generally used for road maintenance. In Florida especially, the toll roads are generally in better condition than, say, I-4... so I don't have much of a problem with that.
Oh, and thanks for the meaningful reply. Nice change of pace.
Thanks. I don't post often - only when I feel strongly about something (or am really bored;)
That said, some issues must be solved first. WiFi security is still too lax, and uneducated users only make it worse. We need a truly idiot-proof security protocol...
I would think that it would be difficult to provide a nation-wide wireless service using 802.11b (or g), given that this is unlicensed spectrum. If a particular area had all available channels used up already by local networks, the telcom companies can't just come in and take over the spectrum, as they have no more rights to it than anyone else.
However, a band that is licensed for such use would be good (think Ricochet) for a similar service. It wouldn't be the same as stumbling on free/open hotspots, but they could license the spectrum and deploy it nation-wide, much like is currently done with cell phones.
I would personally welcome something like this, providing they used relatively open protocols (eg, the card/device necessary for access would work under Linux, *BSD, etc).
Ricochet had a good idea, but IIRC not enough demand and/or funding to pull it off (the 128k limit IMO wasn't too bad, though these days it'd have to be a bit faster to really catch on).
Free hotspots will always have their place, but for a pay-for-access service a new protocol, using a different (and licensed) spectrum, is necessary. The protocol would have its authentication and (hopefully) encryption handled at a low level (hardware level ideally), and just as importantly would not interfere with the unlicensed spectrum.
The only real problem I see with public cameras is the line is more easily blurred.
You should also consider that your own tax dollars, in this case, are being spent to monitor you. If you feel protected by this, and can justify whatever costs you end up paying for it, then your argument may be good. I personally don't think this is a good use of tax dollars, given how much of one's income (not to mention that of a business) goes to taxes, and how much better that money could be spent.
But I can record you with a camera on the side of my house to see you as you drive by.
Sure you can -- that's your right. It's also your camera, your film, your resources -- not mine (by way of tax money). I don't have a problem with that, never have. One learns to realize that anything they do is liable to be recorded in some manner, especially in public places.
But when the government starts doing so for the explicit purpose of monitoring people, I start to worry. Not to mention abuse......of which red-light cameras are a perfect example. They generally cost about $10,000 to implement, and bring in millions in fines. The rules on yellow-light timings have even changed to favor busting people, rather than (as they were before) to give people enough time to get through them.
Certainly this Florida town has the potential of finding some way to abuse this for their own benefit, just like red light cameras all over the country. And this is of course paid for by you and I, and (in the case of red-light cameras) the victims (when you change laws to cause more people to violate them, those people are, IMO, victims, not criminals).
The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.
And that's where it starts. The thing is, we have (at the moment) a right to privacy. While this particular story isn't all that big a deal, we continually accept more and more invasions on privacy.
Life inherently contains risk. You can't protect everyone all of the time, without making life completely miserable. So while a particular technology may have some benefits, it also may destroy any enjoyment of life.
Think about health nuts (vegans, etc). They refuse to eat meats, etc, or perhaps they work out 4 hours a day. Whatever it is, they may prolong their life by some amount (a few years perhaps) but when your whole life revolves around extending it, what good is it?
I'm willing to take a risk that someone might get away with a crime here and there, in exchange for not having my every move monitored by camera, GPS, credit cards, or whatever. And if I get killed as a result -- then I guess my number came up. At least I had fun while I could.
Back ~1990 I bought a device from Barkus Berry Electronics which delayed higher frequencies a few ms to let the "slower" bass and low-mid frequencies play catch-up.
To me, that sounds like phase-shift correction, in a way. More accurately, phase-delay correction.
Any time you low-pass a signal, there is going to be some sort of phase delay as a result -- whether that phase delay is a result of an active/passive crossover, or the physical attributes of the speaker, the problem is the same.
Phase correction is commonly used in high-end (eg, broadcast quality) crossovers (equalizers, multi-band compressors, etc). But the result is always the same: a delay.
This is fine for TV, movies, etc, but (as other posters have pointed out) isn't the proper solution for realtime applications like gaming. I admit, I personally probably would never notice a 3-5 frame delay in a game, but I do notice when the video and audio are out-of-sync on my Tivo (happens more often than I'd like)...
I've been giving some thought to search engine referencing, and how XxX was a huge mistake, because searching for it would be difficult.
I often wonder if this is sometimes done on purpose. One example is the band Live, given that searching for "Live" of course turns up millions of unrelated results... though Live was around (and so-named) quite a bit before the P2P thing exploded...... but I do still wonder if this is something that is considered these days when naming a band/movie/whatever (it's searchability, for good and/or bad)...
there are good answers already but here are my two cents: 1. Installing a backdoor in my compiler or my connection to the device is way harder than installing a backdoor in binary code. 2. I do read source code, anybody installing a router for critical missions should also be able to do so. It is not that hard to read, and I think it will be easier to remove backdoor than writing a clever one so it won't be spotted easily. 3. MOST IMPORTANTLY: If this happened with open source, we would have a chance to fix it as soon as we learn about it. There would be no need to wait for the vendor.
I think there's one more:
4. Even if you don't look at (or understand) the source code, and I don't, and noone reading Slashdot does... someone, somewhere, will if it's in relatively wide distribution.
Lead free soldering represents a minority in manufacturing, with companies now only starting to switch over with pressure from Japan and eventually the EU.
I'm not sure why I was under the impression that companies had started doing this a while ago, but I guess it's good that something is being done now anyway. I don't really know what kind of dangers lead poses, though even if minor, and if it's not *that* difficult to start using something else, it probably should be phased out...
I think we are seeing this trend a bit more than before. Where a few years ago, speed was the all-important marketing factor (consumers wanted faster CPUs), these days computers are fast enough for most.
Look at a typical HP or Dell (or even e-Machines) people buy these days. My cousin's HP Pavilion has a DVD+/-R, CD-RW, 80 GB disk, fast P4 etc -- yet is a very quiet and small machine. There's a shroud over the CPU leading to a case fan (there is also a separate CPU and PSU fan; some Gateways from a couple years ago *replaced* the CPU and/or PSU fans with such a shroud setup).
Yet it's very quiet, and I believe the fans are even running at a lower voltage than normal (they kick fast at first on power-up, and quickly slow down to a very quiet speed).
Why? Because these days, in my opinion, people are more apt to upgrade to get a smaller, quieter, more efficient PC than a faster one. Their current PC probably does all they need as far as speed/RAM/disk space is concerned. And unless you're playing the latest and greatest 3D games, video performance makes little difference from low to high end these days (my geForce was top of the line in its day; now you can't even buy a slower/crappier card. Yet it's sufficient).
I think the market is driving the industry in that general direction -- quieter, smaller and more efficient PCs, that are plenty fast (rather than "fastest available").
I would personally love to see the Pentium M processors start to appear in desktops, which is something I hadn't considered before. Or even just more efficient desktop processors in general. But I do believe the industry is moving in that direction, and we'll be seeing quieter and more energy efficient machines in the next few years (notice that even today, flat-panel monitors are becoming standard even on low-end machines).
Just wait - I believe that within a couple of years, ads for Dell, etc, will be pushing things like noise level, energy efficiency, and small form-factor, touting GHz/MB/GB a bit less...
I hate to reply to my own post, but I think a comprimise where the cost of disposal (or a portion thereof) could be added to the price of the product. I believe this is used in some industries already, though I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Someone else pointed out that there are in fact computer recycling facilities, and I know that this is true. However, it's not yet common practice for people to use them. Some incentive -- be it enforcement, which I'm having second thoughts about, or making it free or added to the original purchase price -- would help.//
I'm not denying that the lead reduction is real. It is real.
But this isn't anything unique to Intel, and it isn't done out of the goodness of their green little hearts.
I agree with you for the most part. However, lead-free solder isn't much more difficult to work with (at least as an elecronics hobbiest). I think the concern is more the cost of the solder, given that (I believe) it usually contains a lot of silver. Maybe it's harder to manufacture (or manufacture with), or perhaps there are other mechanical/electrical issues, I don't know, but I suspect cost is the biggest issue with moving from lead in electronics manufacturing.
I do agree though that Intel is using "compliance with laws" to mean "doing the right thing", and putting that spin on it. But most companies do that, and I don't necessarily flaw them for that; at least they aren't trying to fight the regulations in order to avoid having to change their industry in some way (think recording companies, telcos, airlines, etc). Instead, they're complying, and using that for some good PR at the same time.
The lead in the solder on the boards and in the power supply is a far greater factor than the very small amount of lead in a CPU.
I'm not so sure that this is true these days. I have no sources here, but I believe the majority of solder used in consumer electronics (including PCs) is of the lead-free variety (mostly silver and nickel, I believe).
I do know that some cheaper consumer electronic devices have warnings in the manual about proper disposal because "this product contains lead...", but most things manufactured these days don't have this warning (presumably because the lead content is below some preset threshold?)
I could be wrong of course, but I do believe this to be the case with most electronics these days.
I'm wondering what would happen if all manufacturers of electronic equipment were required to provide a 5-year warranty on all their products. Anyone think it would reduce the amount of cheap electronic stuff that ends up in the garbage after a week and contributes to pollution?
I see three problems with this. The more obvious is that the market doesn't want this; otherwise people would buy higher-quality products (at an appropriate and higher price). But many people (possibly most) buy cheaper equipment, be it computers or consumer electronics, and aren't willing to pay for higher quality or a longer warranty.
In other words, if the market in general wanted higher-quality products worthy of longer warranties, etc, the market can choose this. Consumers would avoid cheaper brands and stick with known, reliable manufacturers. But the majority wants everything cheap (in the US, and from my own observations anyway). Which is why we have so many low-quality products out there ($50 DVD players, $70 TV/VCR combos, etc that likely will fail within a couple of years). The market wants them, else they wouldn't be so common.
The second problem I have is that this would make it more difficult for a smaller company to enter the market. Even if the new company has a quality product, if they are required to guarantee it for five years, that adds a lot of cost (processing warranty repairs/replacements, maintaining customer records, etc). This probably isn't such a big problem, but is worth mentioning.
The final problem is that some consumer products are sold to be disposable for other reasons. Most people that I know have been through at least one new cell phone every two years for the last five to ten years. Many people don't plan on their new PC being worth much in a couple of years. New technologies often replace older/current technologies, so the market simply doesn't want a high-quality, guaranteed-for-five-years product that they know will be thrown out in a year or two. It's not worth the extra cost that would be added to the product.
I don't want the government to require that any TV I buy in 2008 (be it a large-screen plasma, 12-volt for my van, or a 2-inch battery powered TV) have an expensive HDTV tuner and high resolution display, but it was seen as a solution to a problem that (IMO) didn't even exist. Likewise, I also don't want them to require that any cheap electronic device I purchase come with a 5-year warranty, which really won't solve this problem anyway.
Solution?
With cell phones, most people dispose of them by turning them in to their provider (all of which will dispose of them properly, for free in most cases). We need something standard for this with PC equipment, like we have with automobiles (oil, tires, batteries - all easy to find a proper disposal facility).
If there were computer recycling centers, that could properly dispose or recycle the components and/or bare elements, that was easily accessible and known to most people -- well, I think that would be a better solution than requiring companies to guarantee products for some arbitrary period that may not work well for some industries and consumers. Having fines (after a long transition period) for improper disposal -- again just like the auto repair industry -- would help make it a common standard. Obviously the fines/penalties should be on-par with the relative environmental effect that improper disposal of a PC would have (eg, relatively small, but still good incentive to do the "right thing").
Quite the contrary. AMD has introduced the X+ rating for that reason. The problem is totally self-made. They've developed a design which has a better performance (Banias/Dothan...) at even lower clock speed. Now they have a problem to place that chip against its own products.
To clarify (and make sure I'm understanding correctly), Intel's "more MHz/GHz is better" marketing approach is presenting a problem to even themselves, much like it did for AMD a couple of years ago. Now that Intel is making more effecient (work done per-clock) processors, like AMD has been doing, simply comparing MHz among even just Intel processors is no longer a good performance measure, and might even make their new line appear slower (again, when comparing only clock-speed numbers).
It sounds like they're taking a step back from the P4 design, which were slower clock for clock than even their older (PIII) processors, but capable of higher clock speeds; so at the time the MHz myth worked to their advantage, where now it is no longer to their advantage.
That, and the market (in my opinion) isn't as speed-hungry as it was just a year ago. A quieter, smaller, more energy-efficient PC design is more likely to make the average user upgrade than a faster, beefier PC. Computers are "fast enough" for most people's needs (most of the time even for myself, a programmer and FPS game player).
A Pb-free chip only cost 1-3 dollars more than otherwise in my experience... (consumer electronics ASICs)
I believe your experience is quite different than designing billion-transistor, ultra-high-clock chips, though. When they make a major structural change (such as material type or die size), it affects all aspects of the process.
I'm not an engineer, so I don't know how much of an impact this particular change makes, and I don't know if it will increase the ultimate cost at all (who knows - material cost might just go down). I just think that throwing in a new rule (relating to the particular materials used) into the process at such a potentially deep level would cause a lot of changes to be made (ultimately the added cost may be mostly R&D recoup)...
I'd fathom that Intel would love for their chips to use less power, but they are more concerned w/ the Mhz race...
I agree to an extent, but you have to realize how much thought must go into power consumption when you increase speed and transistor count. To get a higher clock frequency, and to pack more transistors on the CPU, you must lower the power consumption overall quite significantly.
The difference, of course, is that Intel's market is mostly performance machines where power consumption is secondary (IOW, it's not so much Intel that makes this a secondary concern, but the market).
Transmeta's market is all about power consumption; thus, their CPUs are designed to be more efficient, and slower.
AMD is more toward Intel in my opinion, though they've gotten a lot better (remember when the original Athlons were known to have major heat issues?)
To sum it up, I agree with you for the most part, but power consumption is something they all have to deal with quite heavily. That final balance, however, is mostly about what their target market wants.
Actually, intel is moving away from measuring chip speed by GHZ. Wired just had this article about it.
Basically, Intel is a couple years behind AMD who is now using numbers like 2300+ to describe chip speed.
The difference here is this: AMD's numbers were intended for comparison with a P4; for example, an Athlon 2600+ is supposed to be roughly equal to a P4-2.6 GHz. And to AMD's credit, most benchmarks showed that they were quite generous to Intel.
Intel designed the P4 to do less work per clock, but at a much higher potential clock. Thus even a P-III would out-do a P4 for the same clock frequency. Whether this was a marketing decision or not, I don't know...
Point being, Intel is getting away from clock-speed ratings for different reasons. I personally think that it's because demand has gone down significantly. Computers are today more than fast enough for almost everything the average user wants to do. Even I don't really need a faster machine at this point, and I write software...
So the market isn't going to be driven by faster CPUs. Most of my family won't buy a new PC based solely on that. But if the new machine was smaller, quieter, and more power-efficient, that might be incentive to upgrade (again, even I would probably go for that if it were at least as fast as my current PC).
It's all about market demand. For the last few years, consumers demanded faster CPU speeds; this has changed, and the smarter companies in this industry are changing as well.
I think power consumption has always been a large factor. You can't increase switching speed and transistor count without either utilizing a LOT more power, or making the process more efficient.
Now granted, the "need for speed" in recent years has caused the net effect to be higher power consumption, but if consumption were anywhere near the level of older processors, but with the transistor count and switching speed of current processors -- we'd need some very serious heat dissipation.
Right now, speeds are fast enough that raw clock speed isn't as much of a concern for consumers any more. Even I don't feel the need to upgrade at this point, as the gains would be minimal. Any machine you buy new today will be more than sufficiently fast for what most users do, and most of them will play current and near-future games with ease.
So the push is now back to power consumption, just like when all the "Enegery Star Compliant" stuff first started appearing. Notice that most PC companies are making much quiter PCs, giving them smaller and more stylish designs, etc -- rather than having the fastest available CPU, etc. Lower power consumption falls inline with this, especially with making PCs quieter (less power means less required cooling, smaller power supplies, and ultimately smaller and quieter PCs).
It's all a matter of what's going to sell at a given moment. If we required more CPU speed, power consumption be damned. While we don't really need more speed, focus can go to power consumption and efficiency.
If I started an Automobile company that sold an automibile called 'car'. Then 30 years latter I happen to be the largest automobile maker in the world, I still can not, and should not, prevent someone else from using the term 'car' to describe their automobile.
The analogy is, in my opinion, a bit flawed... the term "windows" has been in use before, but noone ever called a windowing system or windowing-based OS "Windows" before. It is a slightly different use of the generic term.
To better your analogy, if your car were called "Tire" or "Transmission" -- using a term that was in use in the industry, but not to describe the entire product -- then you'd have a (arguably) trade-markable term.
Then if I named my car -- targetted at the same market as yours for that matter -- something similar, you'd have a case against me.
I don't know who's side to be on here, honestly. On the one hand I want to just say MS is at fault, but setting aside my feelings for MS, it's simply not that cut-and-dry. It's a stickly legal situation in any case...
Which would be fine, because "windows" is a generic term. It was in wide use in reference to graphical systems long before Bill came onto the scene.
I have mixed feelings on this. Putting aside my normal MS hatred, I kinda see it from both sides.
On the one hand, graphical elements representing an application have been referred to as "windows" in the past. However, calling an entire OS "Windows" is a somewhat new use of the term... while similar, it's not the same meaning.
We never called a window-based operating system "windows" before, so using it as a trade-markable name could be understandable.
If you agree with that reasoning, even slightly, "Lindows" does seem to be intentionally confusing. Especially in non-English countries where (guessing) the word Windows (not a translation, but the English word itself) may only be used to reference the Microsoft product.
Again, I won't take sides, because I see the merits of both arguments. It's certainly a sticky legal situation, and I wouldn't want to be on either side of it. The implications of any outcome could be big...
I wouldn't point this out but you're the second person I've seen say it today.. Its a mix of "Linus" and "Unix". Whoever put the X and S keys together was obviously out to get us.
I wasn't going to point it out, but I believe you have it slightly incorrect as well. The term Linux was a combination of Linus (creator of Linux) and Minix, a Unix-like OS that (IIRC) ran on the x86 platform.
In fact, again IIRC, Linus himself had a silly name for it (or perhaps no name at all). His friend, who donated FTP space for the project, renamed the file to "linux" before publishing it, and the name caught on from there.
Are you saying that stores are starting to, in effect, charge extra if you pay with cash?
Not exactly, but I understand the confusion. The card being referred to is just a "savings card" (they go by many names). You sign up, and they give you a card that entitles you to discounts at that store chain, regardless of your method of payment.
The point was that cash isn't anonymous anymore, if used in conjunction with such a card. Many people use false information, but often the card serves other purposes; some stores will cash checks if you have a card. Thus, many people will use their real information.
I also suspect that if you ever do use a credit card or check, in combination with a savings card, the store can easily tie your name to the card (though I'm not sure about the legality of that).
I'm not doubting that automatics are sophisticated, powerful pieces of equipment. I'm saying that their function replaces the role of an even more sophisticated, powerful piece of equipment...
I personally love driving a manual transmission, but an automatic does offer a lot of convenience. It mostly depends on the particular car, too. Some transmissions are "dumb", where (for example) going up a steep hill will have it constantly jumping between two gears. Others (usually electronically controlled) are much more intelligent about selecting gears, and up-shifting only when it knows it can handle it (my '91 camry impresses me).
Plus, when drinking coffee in heavy traffic, it's just nice not to have to deal with shifting gears.
...and doesn't offer anything NEW in return.
It does for someone not very mechanically inclined. Some people will never be able to learn it (my mom for example; tried many times, just doesn't "get it"). Others (myself, my dad) pick up on it right away.
I cringe when I hear someone burning their clutch simply taking off, and I can't stand when I see the person in front of me roll three feet backward before taking off up a hill. These are people who would do much better with an automatic. Anything that requires less brain power is good, especially a very mature, proven, and well understood technology like automatic transmissions.
Not necessarily. The specification can be used for PCI cards as well, and in fact AC97 is used on some lower-end audio cards. It's more of a specification for minimum supported features and other specs.
The fact that it is on-board in itself doesn't mean it is bad. It's all in the implementation. With proper design techniques (ground-loop isolation, etc) you can get quite a good S/N ratio. It doesn't need "separation from the motherboard", rather, it needs a buffered power bus, separate audio and digital grounds, etc.
The bottom line is, you get what you pay for. If you spend $100 for a motherboard with onboard sound, video, nic, modem, etc... you're likely to get cheap versions of each. If you spend $130 on a PCI sound card, you'll probably get really good specs, whether it is based on AC-97, this new spec, or its own details.
Slashdot Mirror
I think if you actually found yourself on the other side of this, the actual victim of a crime, or worse yet, your wife, husband, son or daughter in a situation, the reality of it might change your mind.
It might, but most humans' perception of things change when the situation changes. I still don't think it's a good idea to make rash decisions based on some recent event that hurt us.
Prime example is airport "security". Everyone went crazy after 9/11, and of course the vast majority of the measures currently in place would not have stopped what happened. And if these measures were in place in 2001, the hijackers would have done something different.
But when it was fresh in people's minds, implementing more "security" at airports sounded good all of a sudden. Nevermind what a pain in the ass it is to fly 2.5 years later, with no real amount of added security.
We can always look back at a situation and say "gee, if only I had done this, that wouldn't have happened", but guess what? That's life. No matter what you do to prevent something from happening, something else you couldn't have conceived may just happen instead.
So let's say in a few years, cameras are everywhere. Fine, but the criminals know this as well as we do, and will find other ways to get away with what they're doing. The ones who, today, would have been caught by the cameras, knew enough to find another way to kidnap my family without being seen; thus, it still wouldn't have helped.
Meanwhile I forget to pay a parking ticket and am tracked down immediately.
[re: e-pass at toll booths] ... if a rich town majority wants it.. I think that is somewhat different. ;)
;)
It may be a bad idea but the public has a right to make bad decisions
Agreed, if they (the bad-decision-making part of the public) are the only ones paying for it. I have no problem with someone spending their own money unwisely. What's unwise to me may be a good solution for them, and that's their right.
I'm of the opinion that taxes should be much more localized than they are. We all pay for schools, whether or not we ever have children. We all pay for roads, even if we don't drive.
However -- I do believe that money collected at toll booths (manual or e-pass) is generally used for road maintenance. In Florida especially, the toll roads are generally in better condition than, say, I-4... so I don't have much of a problem with that.
Oh, and thanks for the meaningful reply. Nice change of pace.
Thanks. I don't post often - only when I feel strongly about something (or am really bored
That said, some issues must be solved first. WiFi security is still too lax, and uneducated users only make it worse. We need a truly idiot-proof security protocol...
I would think that it would be difficult to provide a nation-wide wireless service using 802.11b (or g), given that this is unlicensed spectrum. If a particular area had all available channels used up already by local networks, the telcom companies can't just come in and take over the spectrum, as they have no more rights to it than anyone else.
However, a band that is licensed for such use would be good (think Ricochet) for a similar service. It wouldn't be the same as stumbling on free/open hotspots, but they could license the spectrum and deploy it nation-wide, much like is currently done with cell phones.
I would personally welcome something like this, providing they used relatively open protocols (eg, the card/device necessary for access would work under Linux, *BSD, etc).
Ricochet had a good idea, but IIRC not enough demand and/or funding to pull it off (the 128k limit IMO wasn't too bad, though these days it'd have to be a bit faster to really catch on).
Free hotspots will always have their place, but for a pay-for-access service a new protocol, using a different (and licensed) spectrum, is necessary. The protocol would have its authentication and (hopefully) encryption handled at a low level (hardware level ideally), and just as importantly would not interfere with the unlicensed spectrum.
The only real problem I see with public cameras is the line is more easily blurred.
...of which red-light cameras are a perfect example. They generally cost about $10,000 to implement, and bring in millions in fines. The rules on yellow-light timings have even changed to favor busting people, rather than (as they were before) to give people enough time to get through them.
You should also consider that your own tax dollars, in this case, are being spent to monitor you. If you feel protected by this, and can justify whatever costs you end up paying for it, then your argument may be good. I personally don't think this is a good use of tax dollars, given how much of one's income (not to mention that of a business) goes to taxes, and how much better that money could be spent.
But I can record you with a camera on the side of my house to see you as you drive by.
Sure you can -- that's your right. It's also your camera, your film, your resources -- not mine (by way of tax money). I don't have a problem with that, never have. One learns to realize that anything they do is liable to be recorded in some manner, especially in public places.
But when the government starts doing so for the explicit purpose of monitoring people, I start to worry. Not to mention abuse...
Certainly this Florida town has the potential of finding some way to abuse this for their own benefit, just like red light cameras all over the country. And this is of course paid for by you and I, and (in the case of red-light cameras) the victims (when you change laws to cause more people to violate them, those people are, IMO, victims, not criminals).
The only people who have anything to fear are those that are trying to hide something.
And that's where it starts. The thing is, we have (at the moment) a right to privacy. While this particular story isn't all that big a deal, we continually accept more and more invasions on privacy.
Life inherently contains risk. You can't protect everyone all of the time, without making life completely miserable. So while a particular technology may have some benefits, it also may destroy any enjoyment of life.
Think about health nuts (vegans, etc). They refuse to eat meats, etc, or perhaps they work out 4 hours a day. Whatever it is, they may prolong their life by some amount (a few years perhaps) but when your whole life revolves around extending it, what good is it?
I'm willing to take a risk that someone might get away with a crime here and there, in exchange for not having my every move monitored by camera, GPS, credit cards, or whatever. And if I get killed as a result -- then I guess my number came up. At least I had fun while I could.
Just my two cents.
Back ~1990 I bought a device from Barkus Berry Electronics which delayed higher frequencies a few ms to let the "slower" bass and low-mid frequencies play catch-up.
To me, that sounds like phase-shift correction, in a way. More accurately, phase-delay correction.
Any time you low-pass a signal, there is going to be some sort of phase delay as a result -- whether that phase delay is a result of an active/passive crossover, or the physical attributes of the speaker, the problem is the same.
Phase correction is commonly used in high-end (eg, broadcast quality) crossovers (equalizers, multi-band compressors, etc). But the result is always the same: a delay.
This is fine for TV, movies, etc, but (as other posters have pointed out) isn't the proper solution for realtime applications like gaming. I admit, I personally probably would never notice a 3-5 frame delay in a game, but I do notice when the video and audio are out-of-sync on my Tivo (happens more often than I'd like)...
I've been giving some thought to search engine referencing, and how XxX was a huge mistake, because searching for it would be difficult.
... but I do still wonder if this is something that is considered these days when naming a band/movie/whatever (it's searchability, for good and/or bad)...
I often wonder if this is sometimes done on purpose. One example is the band Live, given that searching for "Live" of course turns up millions of unrelated results... though Live was around (and so-named) quite a bit before the P2P thing exploded...
Just a random thought that popped up...
there are good answers already but here are my two cents:
1. Installing a backdoor in my compiler or my connection to the device is way harder than installing a backdoor in binary code.
2. I do read source code, anybody installing a router for critical missions should also be able to do so. It is not that hard to read, and I think it will be easier to remove backdoor than writing a clever one so it won't be spotted easily.
3. MOST IMPORTANTLY: If this happened with open source, we would have a chance to fix it as soon as we learn about it. There would be no need to wait for the vendor.
I think there's one more:
4. Even if you don't look at (or understand) the source code, and I don't, and noone reading Slashdot does... someone, somewhere, will if it's in relatively wide distribution.
Lead free soldering represents a minority in manufacturing, with companies now only starting to switch over with pressure from Japan and eventually the EU.
I'm not sure why I was under the impression that companies had started doing this a while ago, but I guess it's good that something is being done now anyway. I don't really know what kind of dangers lead poses, though even if minor, and if it's not *that* difficult to start using something else, it probably should be phased out...
I think we are seeing this trend a bit more than before. Where a few years ago, speed was the all-important marketing factor (consumers wanted faster CPUs), these days computers are fast enough for most.
Look at a typical HP or Dell (or even e-Machines) people buy these days. My cousin's HP Pavilion has a DVD+/-R, CD-RW, 80 GB disk, fast P4 etc -- yet is a very quiet and small machine. There's a shroud over the CPU leading to a case fan (there is also a separate CPU and PSU fan; some Gateways from a couple years ago *replaced* the CPU and/or PSU fans with such a shroud setup).
Yet it's very quiet, and I believe the fans are even running at a lower voltage than normal (they kick fast at first on power-up, and quickly slow down to a very quiet speed).
Why? Because these days, in my opinion, people are more apt to upgrade to get a smaller, quieter, more efficient PC than a faster one. Their current PC probably does all they need as far as speed/RAM/disk space is concerned. And unless you're playing the latest and greatest 3D games, video performance makes little difference from low to high end these days (my geForce was top of the line in its day; now you can't even buy a slower/crappier card. Yet it's sufficient).
I think the market is driving the industry in that general direction -- quieter, smaller and more efficient PCs, that are plenty fast (rather than "fastest available").
I would personally love to see the Pentium M processors start to appear in desktops, which is something I hadn't considered before. Or even just more efficient desktop processors in general. But I do believe the industry is moving in that direction, and we'll be seeing quieter and more energy efficient machines in the next few years (notice that even today, flat-panel monitors are becoming standard even on low-end machines).
Just wait - I believe that within a couple of years, ads for Dell, etc, will be pushing things like noise level, energy efficiency, and small form-factor, touting GHz/MB/GB a bit less...
I hate to reply to my own post, but I think a comprimise where the cost of disposal (or a portion thereof) could be added to the price of the product. I believe this is used in some industries already, though I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Someone else pointed out that there are in fact computer recycling facilities, and I know that this is true. However, it's not yet common practice for people to use them. Some incentive -- be it enforcement, which I'm having second thoughts about, or making it free or added to the original purchase price -- would help.//
I'm not denying that the lead reduction is real. It is real.
But this isn't anything unique to Intel, and it isn't done out of the goodness of their green little hearts.
I agree with you for the most part. However, lead-free solder isn't much more difficult to work with (at least as an elecronics hobbiest). I think the concern is more the cost of the solder, given that (I believe) it usually contains a lot of silver. Maybe it's harder to manufacture (or manufacture with), or perhaps there are other mechanical/electrical issues, I don't know, but I suspect cost is the biggest issue with moving from lead in electronics manufacturing.
I do agree though that Intel is using "compliance with laws" to mean "doing the right thing", and putting that spin on it. But most companies do that, and I don't necessarily flaw them for that; at least they aren't trying to fight the regulations in order to avoid having to change their industry in some way (think recording companies, telcos, airlines, etc). Instead, they're complying, and using that for some good PR at the same time.
The lead in the solder on the boards and in the power supply is a far greater factor than the very small amount of lead in a CPU.
I'm not so sure that this is true these days. I have no sources here, but I believe the majority of solder used in consumer electronics (including PCs) is of the lead-free variety (mostly silver and nickel, I believe).
I do know that some cheaper consumer electronic devices have warnings in the manual about proper disposal because "this product contains lead...", but most things manufactured these days don't have this warning (presumably because the lead content is below some preset threshold?)
I could be wrong of course, but I do believe this to be the case with most electronics these days.
I'm wondering what would happen if all manufacturers of electronic equipment were required to provide a 5-year warranty on all their products. Anyone think it would reduce the amount of cheap electronic stuff that ends up in the garbage after a week and contributes to pollution?
I see three problems with this. The more obvious is that the market doesn't want this; otherwise people would buy higher-quality products (at an appropriate and higher price). But many people (possibly most) buy cheaper equipment, be it computers or consumer electronics, and aren't willing to pay for higher quality or a longer warranty.
In other words, if the market in general wanted higher-quality products worthy of longer warranties, etc, the market can choose this. Consumers would avoid cheaper brands and stick with known, reliable manufacturers. But the majority wants everything cheap (in the US, and from my own observations anyway). Which is why we have so many low-quality products out there ($50 DVD players, $70 TV/VCR combos, etc that likely will fail within a couple of years). The market wants them, else they wouldn't be so common.
The second problem I have is that this would make it more difficult for a smaller company to enter the market. Even if the new company has a quality product, if they are required to guarantee it for five years, that adds a lot of cost (processing warranty repairs/replacements, maintaining customer records, etc). This probably isn't such a big problem, but is worth mentioning.
The final problem is that some consumer products are sold to be disposable for other reasons. Most people that I know have been through at least one new cell phone every two years for the last five to ten years. Many people don't plan on their new PC being worth much in a couple of years. New technologies often replace older/current technologies, so the market simply doesn't want a high-quality, guaranteed-for-five-years product that they know will be thrown out in a year or two. It's not worth the extra cost that would be added to the product.
I don't want the government to require that any TV I buy in 2008 (be it a large-screen plasma, 12-volt for my van, or a 2-inch battery powered TV) have an expensive HDTV tuner and high resolution display, but it was seen as a solution to a problem that (IMO) didn't even exist. Likewise, I also don't want them to require that any cheap electronic device I purchase come with a 5-year warranty, which really won't solve this problem anyway.
Solution?
With cell phones, most people dispose of them by turning them in to their provider (all of which will dispose of them properly, for free in most cases). We need something standard for this with PC equipment, like we have with automobiles (oil, tires, batteries - all easy to find a proper disposal facility).
If there were computer recycling centers, that could properly dispose or recycle the components and/or bare elements, that was easily accessible and known to most people -- well, I think that would be a better solution than requiring companies to guarantee products for some arbitrary period that may not work well for some industries and consumers. Having fines (after a long transition period) for improper disposal -- again just like the auto repair industry -- would help make it a common standard. Obviously the fines/penalties should be on-par with the relative environmental effect that improper disposal of a PC would have (eg, relatively small, but still good incentive to do the "right thing").
Quite the contrary. AMD has introduced the X+ rating for that reason. The problem is totally self-made. They've developed a design which has a better performance (Banias/Dothan...) at even lower clock speed. Now they have a problem to place that chip against its own products.
To clarify (and make sure I'm understanding correctly), Intel's "more MHz/GHz is better" marketing approach is presenting a problem to even themselves, much like it did for AMD a couple of years ago. Now that Intel is making more effecient (work done per-clock) processors, like AMD has been doing, simply comparing MHz among even just Intel processors is no longer a good performance measure, and might even make their new line appear slower (again, when comparing only clock-speed numbers).
It sounds like they're taking a step back from the P4 design, which were slower clock for clock than even their older (PIII) processors, but capable of higher clock speeds; so at the time the MHz myth worked to their advantage, where now it is no longer to their advantage.
That, and the market (in my opinion) isn't as speed-hungry as it was just a year ago. A quieter, smaller, more energy-efficient PC design is more likely to make the average user upgrade than a faster, beefier PC. Computers are "fast enough" for most people's needs (most of the time even for myself, a programmer and FPS game player).
A Pb-free chip only cost 1-3 dollars more than otherwise in my experience... (consumer electronics ASICs)
I believe your experience is quite different than designing billion-transistor, ultra-high-clock chips, though. When they make a major structural change (such as material type or die size), it affects all aspects of the process.
I'm not an engineer, so I don't know how much of an impact this particular change makes, and I don't know if it will increase the ultimate cost at all (who knows - material cost might just go down). I just think that throwing in a new rule (relating to the particular materials used) into the process at such a potentially deep level would cause a lot of changes to be made (ultimately the added cost may be mostly R&D recoup)...
I'd fathom that Intel would love for their chips to use less power, but they are more concerned w/ the Mhz race...
I agree to an extent, but you have to realize how much thought must go into power consumption when you increase speed and transistor count. To get a higher clock frequency, and to pack more transistors on the CPU, you must lower the power consumption overall quite significantly.
The difference, of course, is that Intel's market is mostly performance machines where power consumption is secondary (IOW, it's not so much Intel that makes this a secondary concern, but the market).
Transmeta's market is all about power consumption; thus, their CPUs are designed to be more efficient, and slower.
AMD is more toward Intel in my opinion, though they've gotten a lot better (remember when the original Athlons were known to have major heat issues?)
To sum it up, I agree with you for the most part, but power consumption is something they all have to deal with quite heavily. That final balance, however, is mostly about what their target market wants.
Actually, intel is moving away from measuring chip speed by GHZ. Wired just had this article about it.
Basically, Intel is a couple years behind AMD who is now using numbers like 2300+ to describe chip speed.
The difference here is this: AMD's numbers were intended for comparison with a P4; for example, an Athlon 2600+ is supposed to be roughly equal to a P4-2.6 GHz. And to AMD's credit, most benchmarks showed that they were quite generous to Intel.
Intel designed the P4 to do less work per clock, but at a much higher potential clock. Thus even a P-III would out-do a P4 for the same clock frequency. Whether this was a marketing decision or not, I don't know...
Point being, Intel is getting away from clock-speed ratings for different reasons. I personally think that it's because demand has gone down significantly. Computers are today more than fast enough for almost everything the average user wants to do. Even I don't really need a faster machine at this point, and I write software...
So the market isn't going to be driven by faster CPUs. Most of my family won't buy a new PC based solely on that. But if the new machine was smaller, quieter, and more power-efficient, that might be incentive to upgrade (again, even I would probably go for that if it were at least as fast as my current PC).
It's all about market demand. For the last few years, consumers demanded faster CPU speeds; this has changed, and the smarter companies in this industry are changing as well.
I think power consumption has always been a large factor. You can't increase switching speed and transistor count without either utilizing a LOT more power, or making the process more efficient.
Now granted, the "need for speed" in recent years has caused the net effect to be higher power consumption, but if consumption were anywhere near the level of older processors, but with the transistor count and switching speed of current processors -- we'd need some very serious heat dissipation.
Right now, speeds are fast enough that raw clock speed isn't as much of a concern for consumers any more. Even I don't feel the need to upgrade at this point, as the gains would be minimal. Any machine you buy new today will be more than sufficiently fast for what most users do, and most of them will play current and near-future games with ease.
So the push is now back to power consumption, just like when all the "Enegery Star Compliant" stuff first started appearing. Notice that most PC companies are making much quiter PCs, giving them smaller and more stylish designs, etc -- rather than having the fastest available CPU, etc. Lower power consumption falls inline with this, especially with making PCs quieter (less power means less required cooling, smaller power supplies, and ultimately smaller and quieter PCs).
It's all a matter of what's going to sell at a given moment. If we required more CPU speed, power consumption be damned. While we don't really need more speed, focus can go to power consumption and efficiency.
If I started an Automobile company that sold an automibile called 'car'.
Then 30 years latter I happen to be the largest automobile maker in the world, I still can not, and should not, prevent someone else from using the term 'car' to describe their automobile.
The analogy is, in my opinion, a bit flawed... the term "windows" has been in use before, but noone ever called a windowing system or windowing-based OS "Windows" before. It is a slightly different use of the generic term.
To better your analogy, if your car were called "Tire" or "Transmission" -- using a term that was in use in the industry, but not to describe the entire product -- then you'd have a (arguably) trade-markable term.
Then if I named my car -- targetted at the same market as yours for that matter -- something similar, you'd have a case against me.
I don't know who's side to be on here, honestly. On the one hand I want to just say MS is at fault, but setting aside my feelings for MS, it's simply not that cut-and-dry. It's a stickly legal situation in any case...
Which would be fine, because "windows" is a generic term. It was in wide use in reference to graphical systems long before Bill came onto the scene.
I have mixed feelings on this. Putting aside my normal MS hatred, I kinda see it from both sides.
On the one hand, graphical elements representing an application have been referred to as "windows" in the past. However, calling an entire OS "Windows" is a somewhat new use of the term... while similar, it's not the same meaning.
We never called a window-based operating system "windows" before, so using it as a trade-markable name could be understandable.
If you agree with that reasoning, even slightly, "Lindows" does seem to be intentionally confusing. Especially in non-English countries where (guessing) the word Windows (not a translation, but the English word itself) may only be used to reference the Microsoft product.
Again, I won't take sides, because I see the merits of both arguments. It's certainly a sticky legal situation, and I wouldn't want to be on either side of it. The implications of any outcome could be big...
I wouldn't point this out but you're the second person I've seen say it today.. Its a mix of "Linus" and "Unix". Whoever put the X and S keys together was obviously out to get us.
I wasn't going to point it out, but I believe you have it slightly incorrect as well. The term Linux was a combination of Linus (creator of Linux) and Minix, a Unix-like OS that (IIRC) ran on the x86 platform.
In fact, again IIRC, Linus himself had a silly name for it (or perhaps no name at all). His friend, who donated FTP space for the project, renamed the file to "linux" before publishing it, and the name caught on from there.
Are you saying that stores are starting to, in effect, charge extra if you pay with cash?
Not exactly, but I understand the confusion. The card being referred to is just a "savings card" (they go by many names). You sign up, and they give you a card that entitles you to discounts at that store chain, regardless of your method of payment.
The point was that cash isn't anonymous anymore, if used in conjunction with such a card. Many people use false information, but often the card serves other purposes; some stores will cash checks if you have a card. Thus, many people will use their real information.
I also suspect that if you ever do use a credit card or check, in combination with a savings card, the store can easily tie your name to the card (though I'm not sure about the legality of that).
I'm not doubting that automatics are sophisticated, powerful pieces of equipment. I'm saying that their function replaces the role of an even more sophisticated, powerful piece of equipment...
...and doesn't offer anything NEW in return.
I personally love driving a manual transmission, but an automatic does offer a lot of convenience. It mostly depends on the particular car, too. Some transmissions are "dumb", where (for example) going up a steep hill will have it constantly jumping between two gears. Others (usually electronically controlled) are much more intelligent about selecting gears, and up-shifting only when it knows it can handle it (my '91 camry impresses me).
Plus, when drinking coffee in heavy traffic, it's just nice not to have to deal with shifting gears.
It does for someone not very mechanically inclined. Some people will never be able to learn it (my mom for example; tried many times, just doesn't "get it"). Others (myself, my dad) pick up on it right away.
I cringe when I hear someone burning their clutch simply taking off, and I can't stand when I see the person in front of me roll three feet backward before taking off up a hill. These are people who would do much better with an automatic. Anything that requires less brain power is good, especially a very mature, proven, and well understood technology like automatic transmissions.
It is still onboard sound
Not necessarily. The specification can be used for PCI cards as well, and in fact AC97 is used on some lower-end audio cards. It's more of a specification for minimum supported features and other specs.
The fact that it is on-board in itself doesn't mean it is bad. It's all in the implementation. With proper design techniques (ground-loop isolation, etc) you can get quite a good S/N ratio. It doesn't need "separation from the motherboard", rather, it needs a buffered power bus, separate audio and digital grounds, etc.
The bottom line is, you get what you pay for. If you spend $100 for a motherboard with onboard sound, video, nic, modem, etc... you're likely to get cheap versions of each. If you spend $130 on a PCI sound card, you'll probably get really good specs, whether it is based on AC-97, this new spec, or its own details.