*If* you could still find an old-style DVI Apple Cinema Display, I believe your best bet is to try the Matrox G400 MAX to drive the 1600x1024. For those who don't know, most of the DVI video cards for PCs, including ATI and NVIDIA-based cards, don't support 1600x1024--the ACD's native resolution.
For that matter, the G400 specs don't list 1600x1024 for the DVI daughtercard, but SGI lists it under their SuperWide Savvy list and a search of the Matrox support forums has responses from Matrox tech support claiming the G400 will drive 1600x1024.
Incidentally, I know some people love the SGI 1600SW, but IMHO, a 17" monitor running 1600x1024 is just painfully small. We had a couple at the last place I worked and I didn't think they were so hot. Of course If I had spent $3k on one, I might find reasons to think that;)
AFAIK, it's not the kind of adapter you want. The apple store web site clearly states that the ADC-DVI adapter is so that you can attach an "old" Apple DVI flatpanel to a new Cube or G4 with an ADC connector. It doesn't let you hook up a new ADC-only flatpanel to your DVI video card.
hahaha indeed.
Linking to DeCSS is certainly not equivalent to "...driving someone to a home so that they may burglarize the home."
In the first place, DeCSS, as the refrain goes, isn't about copying (legal or otherwise) DVDs. Copying of DVDs goes on with or without DeCSS. And as members of the Linux community have often argued, DeCSS as a descrambling program, is essential in order to play legally purchased DVDs on platforms for which DVD CCA licensed players are unavailable.
Secondly, Valenti's analogy is inaccurate if not outright misleading. Linking is closer to providing directions to someone's home.
While HavenCo. and Sealand must insist that they are a sovereign country/principality/whatever, a number of people expressed the opinion (which I tend to agree with) that Sealand's status is only uncertain because Britain hasn't yet felt compelled enough to push the issue (the shots fired off Sealand notwithstanding).
I wonder if anyone in either of the Houses ever brought up HavenCo to support arguments in facor of the bill. After all, it's not just about email, but includes "other encrypted Internet communications". It would be ironic if the need for services like HavenCo. is in part perpetuated by the existence of services such as HavenCo.
Incidentally, what are the latest conspiracy theories around the integrity of PGP? I haven't been paying much attention since the U.S. started relaxing export restrictions on strong encryption, but whenever news like this hits Slashdot we always get the usual spate of "just encrypt all your email" and it would be interesting to hear the conspiracy theorists on how that's really just not satisfactory....
IANAE (I am not an economist:P) but I think you're applying over-simplified, two-party, supply-demand logic ("enjoyment per dollar" etc.) in support of current cd pricing, esp. given the context of the FTC settlement.
Hmm. I didn't ask my ISP to support my message with its resources. I contracted with my ISP to provide X amount of disk space, bandwidth, etc. in return for a monthly payment of Y, subject to an appropriate use policy which fortunately lacks a "caprice" clause.
The magazine::authorISP::mike z analogy of the previous poster is faulty. Mike Z. is arguably the equivalent of the magazine/publisher, not the freelance magazine writer. He is publishing his own materials on his own site. By analogy, the ISP is closer to lumber mill that supplies the paper the print magazine is published on or the shipping company that delivers the printed magazines.
And of course, in the U.S., the people have certain rights to freely express themselves in public spaces, in the mass media (e.g. the web), etc. without being subject to government agency intimidation tactics.
"Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies" is pretty poor advice. How do you define control of the medium? Is it enough to co-locate a server? Get my own T3? Start my own ISP? Buy my own island, create a new independent country, bury cable under the sea floor, start my own ISP, then start my own web site?
A new nation-state for every legal (but controversial) web site, hurrah!
It's very arrogant to pass the judgment "End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all." when that's precisely what's in question here. The discussion is hardly at an end.
I would like to see all web sites running SSL all of the time and for plaintext HTML to disappear. The major Linux distros could make this easier and expediate the changeover by preconfiguring a secure SSL default apache setup and redirecting all requests to port 80 to the secure page for backwards compatibility.
Is this really a viable solution? I disagree with the moderator's opinion that the parent posting is "insightful".
Is someone going to create a trusted root CA that distributes server certificates free for the asking and that the major browsers are going to recognize as a valid signer by default? Or maybe Verisign will change their business strategy and just give away certs for asking nicely =)
And what about accessibility? Not everyone has an SSL-enabled web browser, let alone a 128 bit browser (I mean, it seems silly to get everyone to use http over SSL if we're not going to push for everyone to use 128 bit, eh?). My mom can use a web browser without much difficulty, but she probably isn't going to visit fortify.net to upgrade her browser to 128 bit. People who use speech readers with text-only browsers like Lynx may not be so keen to have to compile in SSL support themselves to be able to access the web. I don't think I have SSL support on my Palm either. Does WebTV have SSL support? blah blah blah etc etc etc....
There's the whole SSL performance issue too I suppose for those of us still trying to make cheap web servers out of leftover 486s (although if you were really hot and bothered by performance perhaps you wouldn't be using a 486 =)).
And this particular discussion is wasting its energies by focusing on what we as information providers or end-users can do to make up for government efforts to build tap-ability into our networks.
I attended one in Berkeley. There was a considerable amount of time spent covering basic HTML authoring. I was disappointed with the content of the class, but it's probably fine if you have only a rudimentary knowledge of web publishing.
Slashdot Mirror
For that matter, the G400 specs don't list 1600x1024 for the DVI daughtercard, but SGI lists it under their SuperWide Savvy list and a search of the Matrox support forums has responses from Matrox tech support claiming the G400 will drive 1600x1024.
Incidentally, I know some people love the SGI 1600SW, but IMHO, a 17" monitor running 1600x1024 is just painfully small. We had a couple at the last place I worked and I didn't think they were so hot. Of course If I had spent $3k on one, I might find reasons to think that ;)
AFAIK, it's not the kind of adapter you want. The apple store web site clearly states that the ADC-DVI adapter is so that you can attach an "old" Apple DVI flatpanel to a new Cube or G4 with an ADC connector. It doesn't let you hook up a new ADC-only flatpanel to your DVI video card.
I wonder if anyone in either of the Houses ever brought up HavenCo to support arguments in facor of the bill. After all, it's not just about email, but includes "other encrypted Internet communications". It would be ironic if the need for services like HavenCo. is in part perpetuated by the existence of services such as HavenCo.
Incidentally, what are the latest conspiracy theories around the integrity of PGP? I haven't been paying much attention since the U.S. started relaxing export restrictions on strong encryption, but whenever news like this hits Slashdot we always get the usual spate of "just encrypt all your email" and it would be interesting to hear the conspiracy theorists on how that's really just not satisfactory....
>> Besides.. white collar crime, like price fixing of CDs, is much more profitable
> Says who that CDs are being price fixed?
Says the FTC and all five major music distributors? (c.f. FTC Settles With Big CD Makers-Cheaper CDs Coming?)
IANAE (I am not an economist :P) but I think you're applying over-simplified, two-party, supply-demand logic ("enjoyment per dollar" etc.) in support of current cd pricing, esp. given the context of the FTC settlement.
The magazine::authorISP::mike z analogy of the previous poster is faulty. Mike Z. is arguably the equivalent of the magazine/publisher, not the freelance magazine writer. He is publishing his own materials on his own site. By analogy, the ISP is closer to lumber mill that supplies the paper the print magazine is published on or the shipping company that delivers the printed magazines.
And of course, in the U.S., the people have certain rights to freely express themselves in public spaces, in the mass media (e.g. the web), etc. without being subject to government agency intimidation tactics.
"Find yourself a medium that you control, don't depend on renting space from other companies" is pretty poor advice. How do you define control of the medium? Is it enough to co-locate a server? Get my own T3? Start my own ISP? Buy my own island, create a new independent country, bury cable under the sea floor, start my own ISP, then start my own web site?
A new nation-state for every legal (but controversial) web site, hurrah!
It's very arrogant to pass the judgment "End of story. Nobody's constitutional rights were stomped on at all." when that's precisely what's in question here. The discussion is hardly at an end.
Is this really a viable solution? I disagree with the moderator's opinion that the parent posting is "insightful".
Is someone going to create a trusted root CA that distributes server certificates free for the asking and that the major browsers are going to recognize as a valid signer by default? Or maybe Verisign will change their business strategy and just give away certs for asking nicely =)
And what about accessibility? Not everyone has an SSL-enabled web browser, let alone a 128 bit browser (I mean, it seems silly to get everyone to use http over SSL if we're not going to push for everyone to use 128 bit, eh?). My mom can use a web browser without much difficulty, but she probably isn't going to visit fortify.net to upgrade her browser to 128 bit. People who use speech readers with text-only browsers like Lynx may not be so keen to have to compile in SSL support themselves to be able to access the web. I don't think I have SSL support on my Palm either. Does WebTV have SSL support? blah blah blah etc etc etc....
There's the whole SSL performance issue too I suppose for those of us still trying to make cheap web servers out of leftover 486s (although if you were really hot and bothered by performance perhaps you wouldn't be using a 486 =)).
And this particular discussion is wasting its energies by focusing on what we as information providers or end-users can do to make up for government efforts to build tap-ability into our networks.
I attended one in Berkeley. There was a considerable amount of time spent covering basic HTML authoring. I was disappointed with the content of the class, but it's probably fine if you have only a rudimentary knowledge of web publishing.