You're missing the point that you're inserting a raftload of indirection in the picture when you use X as it's currently specified. Everything HAS to go through your TCP/IP stack. While it's GREAT for networkability (and I'd not ditch that feature), it's not as great for apps needing peak performance locally- it requires more muscle on the machine doing it this way than if it were direct.
DirectFB was developed not for games, but for media convergence devices (Entertainment systems with Linux running as the core OS, etc.)- other people are latching onto it because of the above problems. DirectFB ditches the need for hacks like DGA (which is needed for things like tuner cards) and allows you to run things like video on demand systems, etc.
Oh, and next time, read up on the actual story, not the/. blurb- they HAVE an X server for this and are advancing it as well because for most things, it's better to use X.
Why don't you visit the sites referenced by the links sometime? They HAVE an X server that sits on top of DirectFB- think of X as being merely a protocol, once you've done that, it matters little how you render to the screen or accept inputs (This is what DirectFB does...) so long as the implementation you're using works at least as well as any others.
Having said this, they're not quite there yet, but it's coming along nicely and is quite promising.
But making claims that that you can't have it both ways is being ignorant of the fact that X is merely a protocol and XFree86 is an implementation of a graphics renderer and input system that fully supports that protocol- you can have an X server sit on top of the thin framebuffer layer (In fact, they HAVE one already.) that drives the framebuffer layer and receieves inputs accordingly.
It's not just "a" or "b" it can be "a" and "b"- and for many things, that IS what you want.
When you're talking about things like tuner cards, strictly speaking, you're never realistically going to be able to do a video push to a remote window- you're going to go to DGA (Uh, that's a hack in XFree86 that allows you to do the DirectFB thing in the context of X...) or you're going to encode it realtime to some compressed format and push the lowered bandwidth data stream to a player on the other machine to be decoded. Otherwise, you're going to need gigabit speeds to do this well for more than one machine. The same goes for videogames, etc.
1) MacOS X isn't a monopoly- yet (if ever).
2) MS has been found to be a monopoly.
3) The rules change for someone in that position.
4) The only way Apple could be in that position (Thereby making your argument analogous) would be if they had some 80+ percent of the desktop market like MS does.
That's definitely bogus. Even if they own the DSL lines, they're obligated to provide any ISP access to the DSL drop at your house. ILEC or CLEC, it doesn't matter. All that MS can do is reconnect you or be prepared to be told that they can't do business in your state.
Showing that you did it prior to the patent application and award dates is all that is required.
Here's a famous example:
Marconi held the patents on radio, it was shown that Tesla had come up with a more sophisticated (as in a voice device) that was shown at the World's Fair some time before Marconi had even sent his telegraphy signal for the first time. Tesla didn't pursue his device because he was working on something "better" in his mind than hertzian wave radio. Marconi's patent on radio was then subsequently revoked.
I'd equate WEP with being akin to a two point seatbelt, to use the analogy further.
IPSEC would be a three-point harness, but isn't "airbags" either. Without something to make it more difficult, IPSEC is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks moreso than on wireline systems because wireline systems rely on the physical wiring and routers to make it all happen. An attack of the MITM nature is harder. There's nothing keeping you from effectively taking out an access point and making it look like you're now the access point.
Has less to do with radio itself and more to do with the big labels trying to strip-mine the populace for money. They're not fostering development of artists anymore and they're picking stuff that they know will sell a bunch of stuff real quick and make a profit now, not in a couple of year's time. More often than not, an artist that DOES develop into something ends up being in a position of power over the labels (i.e. They own a lot of the "properties" or they can get away with renting the rights to the music for a time.) so they try to avoid that.
All that matters to the labels (many of which are responsible for the me-tooism of the games industry as they're the ones doing the publishing now...) is making profits. The only way that they know how to do this nowadays (because it turns the biggest profit, short-term) is to go for that "sure thing" every time.
For the longest time, if you want to work with the US Armed Forces, you couldn't submit anything but Wordperfect documents to them- if you did, it got filed in the bit-bucket. Same goes now for the Legal profession. Most courts will not accept anything but Wordperfect documents. An MS Word document will get a request for a resubmission in Wordperfect format.
All it would take is the German government insisting that they don't accept Word/Excel 2000 documents from ANYONE and the people will have to deal.
There's several cracks of it out and about. Combine it with NetStumbler or something similar and you've got a security issue- sweeps won't get you anywhere unless you're lucky enough to be doing the assessment when the SOB that's breaking into your net is there at the time. Unfortunately, almost everyone can't afford an audit of their net and those that can really pretty much can only afford it about once a month.
This is not to say that 802.11(b) is not useful- far, far from it. This is analogous to having a car with or without airbags. Would you drive a car without airbags? Most people will say "sure" or at least "maybe" because a car's too useful in and of itself with or without that extra level of security. Same goes for 802.11(b).
There's loads of comments from people that were trying to sell a retail box (An unopened box in one case!) that they killed the auction. The story for this comment session indicates that charities can't even accept the software if it's transferred with the machine- they have to have a site license for at least Windows98 to avoid issues with MS.
Next time, read the articles linked to the story header.
...and everything to do with someone that MS can hit up for cash like their stuff was a protection racket. If it were about pirates, they'd go after them. This is about preventing copies of software out there that would keep people from needing to buy their latest stuff (like a drug pusher) so that people will get even more hooked on their stuff.
That's less because of Linux and more due to you playing everything on Windows. Believe me when I tell you if a sizable portion of the potential customer base uses something else, they'll make the games for that something else. You don't see a lot of CP/M or OS/2 applications about do you? In the case of CP/M, it was THE OS back before MS-DOS and IBM came along.
$26 w/o CD is rather cheap for NT copies, no matter what you say. At that point, you're taking chances of being took for all you're worth. In this case, you were had for $260.
Perhaps using NT's not in your best interests if you can't afford it through more legit channels...
...to NOT buy Windows. Really, it's very simple. People claiming that there's no applications on the alternatives aren't thinking clearly- there's applications on MacOS, Linux, and *BSD. Furthermore, all those applications would come your way real quick if you got off of the Windows platform. It's an addiction, like any other- you've got to quit it because it's becoming very obvious that the pusher's come a collecting all on all of you.
Propagation characteristics differ depending on the frequency involved. Energy density will determine whether or not a signal is degraded enough to detect it or not.
Line of sight is not a good rule of thumb for RF propagation- for some things it's a good rule, for others it's only a good determinant of the maximum possible range.
RF is an interesting beast, one in which at one frequency, you're absorbed by the media, in another you're scattered by the same. Sometimes reflection comes into play and the signal bounces all over the place getting where you don't expect it. Sometimes the signal penetrates some media and goes further than you'd normally expect it to. Sometimes the signal hugs the earth and follows it's curvature to some extent (Which is where people get the thinking of line-of-site from- some signals bend some don't.).
Low frequency can be propagated through water and rock. High frequency can't. Low frequency propagates along the curvature of the earth. High frequency propagates along straight lines from the emitter source.
Unless you build a lot more around it, you can still play man in the middle attacks, etc. with 802.11... However, for what they're setting up IPSEC would work with it with little issues.
Since they don't do something like dye-sublimation, you've got to do 4-process color. Since that requires dithering, etc. your effective dots per inch just dropped to something like 300 or 600. So, do photo printers look like crap because they're 300 dots per inch or is it more like they've got a poor implementation of color representation? I suspect that Polaroid's photo printer prints pretty good (I wouldn't know- never saw a print from it...) because they're using their instant film as the print media... It would be true color, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
You're missing the point that you're inserting a raftload of indirection in the picture when you use X as it's currently specified. Everything HAS to go through your TCP/IP stack. While it's GREAT for networkability (and I'd not ditch that feature), it's not as great for apps needing peak performance locally- it requires more muscle on the machine doing it this way than if it were direct.
/. blurb- they HAVE an X server for this and are advancing it as well because for most things, it's better to use X.
DirectFB was developed not for games, but for media convergence devices (Entertainment systems with Linux running as the core OS, etc.)- other people are latching onto it because of the above problems. DirectFB ditches the need for hacks like DGA (which is needed for things like tuner cards) and allows you to run things like video on demand systems, etc.
Oh, and next time, read up on the actual story, not the
They HAVE an X server- it's just not required for everything like it is with XFree86.
Why don't you visit the sites referenced by the links sometime? They HAVE an X server that sits on top of DirectFB- think of X as being merely a protocol, once you've done that, it matters little how you render to the screen or accept inputs (This is what DirectFB does...) so long as the implementation you're using works at least as well as any others.
Having said this, they're not quite there yet, but it's coming along nicely and is quite promising.
But making claims that that you can't have it both ways is being ignorant of the fact that X is merely a protocol and XFree86 is an implementation of a graphics renderer and input system that fully supports that protocol- you can have an X server sit on top of the thin framebuffer layer (In fact, they HAVE one already.) that drives the framebuffer layer and receieves inputs accordingly.
It's not just "a" or "b" it can be "a" and "b"- and for many things, that IS what you want.
When you're talking about things like tuner cards, strictly speaking, you're never realistically going to be able to do a video push to a remote window- you're going to go to DGA (Uh, that's a hack in XFree86 that allows you to do the DirectFB thing in the context of X...) or you're going to encode it realtime to some compressed format and push the lowered bandwidth data stream to a player on the other machine to be decoded. Otherwise, you're going to need gigabit speeds to do this well for more than one machine. The same goes for videogames, etc.
They can't afford people to run the system and most of the :Cue:Cat barcoders have given up on them- how can they afford to sue anyone?
1) MacOS X isn't a monopoly- yet (if ever).
2) MS has been found to be a monopoly.
3) The rules change for someone in that position.
4) The only way Apple could be in that position (Thereby making your argument analogous) would be if they had some 80+ percent of the desktop market like MS does.
That's definitely bogus. Even if they own the DSL lines, they're obligated to provide any ISP access to the DSL drop at your house. ILEC or CLEC, it doesn't matter. All that MS can do is reconnect you or be prepared to be told that they can't do business in your state.
So, by definition, they are commiting potential anti-trust violations by requiring Microsoft only applications to allow people to get their e-mail.
Publishing is not a requirement.
Showing that you did it prior to the patent application and award dates is all that is required.
Here's a famous example:
Marconi held the patents on radio, it was shown that Tesla had come up with a more sophisticated (as in a voice device) that was shown at the World's Fair some time before Marconi had even sent his telegraphy signal for the first time. Tesla didn't pursue his device because he was working on something "better" in his mind than hertzian wave radio. Marconi's patent on radio was then subsequently revoked.
Because it's the easiest to do of all of them (requiring linear time for bitspace used for encryption.).
WEP as a system is weak because of assumptions they made to make it easier to implement.
I'd equate WEP with being akin to a two point seatbelt, to use the analogy further.
IPSEC would be a three-point harness, but isn't "airbags" either. Without something to make it more difficult, IPSEC is vulnerable to man-in-the-middle attacks moreso than on wireline systems because wireline systems rely on the physical wiring and routers to make it all happen. An attack of the MITM nature is harder. There's nothing keeping you from effectively taking out an access point and making it look like you're now the access point.
Has less to do with radio itself and more to do with the big labels trying to strip-mine the populace for money. They're not fostering development of artists anymore and they're picking stuff that they know will sell a bunch of stuff real quick and make a profit now, not in a couple of year's time. More often than not, an artist that DOES develop into something ends up being in a position of power over the labels (i.e. They own a lot of the "properties" or they can get away with renting the rights to the music for a time.) so they try to avoid that.
All that matters to the labels (many of which are responsible for the me-tooism of the games industry as they're the ones doing the publishing now...) is making profits. The only way that they know how to do this nowadays (because it turns the biggest profit, short-term) is to go for that "sure thing" every time.
For the longest time, if you want to work with the US Armed Forces, you couldn't submit anything but Wordperfect documents to them- if you did, it got filed in the bit-bucket. Same goes now for the Legal profession. Most courts will not accept anything but Wordperfect documents. An MS Word document will get a request for a resubmission in Wordperfect format.
All it would take is the German government insisting that they don't accept Word/Excel 2000 documents from ANYONE and the people will have to deal.
There's several cracks of it out and about. Combine it with NetStumbler or something similar and you've got a security issue- sweeps won't get you anywhere unless you're lucky enough to be doing the assessment when the SOB that's breaking into your net is there at the time. Unfortunately, almost everyone can't afford an audit of their net and those that can really pretty much can only afford it about once a month.
This is not to say that 802.11(b) is not useful- far, far from it. This is analogous to having a car with or without airbags. Would you drive a car without airbags? Most people will say "sure" or at least "maybe" because a car's too useful in and of itself with or without that extra level of security. Same goes for 802.11(b).
There's loads of comments from people that were trying to sell a retail box (An unopened box in one case!) that they killed the auction. The story for this comment session indicates that charities can't even accept the software if it's transferred with the machine- they have to have a site license for at least Windows98 to avoid issues with MS.
Next time, read the articles linked to the story header.
...and everything to do with someone that MS can hit up for cash like their stuff was a protection racket. If it were about pirates, they'd go after them. This is about preventing copies of software out there that would keep people from needing to buy their latest stuff (like a drug pusher) so that people will get even more hooked on their stuff.
"When your product is close to indestructable (be it software or diamonds) you don't want a thriving second hand market."
If that's the case, why's MS so keen to kill the second hand market- it's definitely NOT "indestructable"...
That's less because of Linux and more due to you playing everything on Windows. Believe me when I tell you if a sizable portion of the potential customer base uses something else, they'll make the games for that something else. You don't see a lot of CP/M or OS/2 applications about do you? In the case of CP/M, it was THE OS back before MS-DOS and IBM came along.
$26 w/o CD is rather cheap for NT copies, no matter what you say. At that point, you're taking chances of being took for all you're worth. In this case, you were had for $260.
Perhaps using NT's not in your best interests if you can't afford it through more legit channels...
...to NOT buy Windows. Really, it's very simple. People claiming that there's no applications on the alternatives aren't thinking clearly- there's applications on MacOS, Linux, and *BSD. Furthermore, all those applications would come your way real quick if you got off of the Windows platform. It's an addiction, like any other- you've got to quit it because it's becoming very obvious that the pusher's come a collecting all on all of you.
Propagation characteristics differ depending on the frequency involved. Energy density will determine whether or not a signal is degraded enough to detect it or not.
Line of sight is not a good rule of thumb for RF propagation- for some things it's a good rule, for others it's only a good determinant of the maximum possible range.
RF is an interesting beast, one in which at one frequency, you're absorbed by the media, in another you're scattered by the same. Sometimes reflection comes into play and the signal bounces all over the place getting where you don't expect it. Sometimes the signal penetrates some media and goes further than you'd normally expect it to. Sometimes the signal hugs the earth and follows it's curvature to some extent (Which is where people get the thinking of line-of-site from- some signals bend some don't.).
Low frequency can be propagated through water and rock. High frequency can't. Low frequency propagates along the curvature of the earth. High frequency propagates along straight lines from the emitter source.
Unless you build a lot more around it, you can still play man in the middle attacks, etc. with 802.11... However, for what they're setting up IPSEC would work with it with little issues.
Shamir presented a paper that nukes WEP from orbit- in fact, there is an exploit program out there making the rounds...
Since they don't do something like dye-sublimation, you've got to do 4-process color. Since that requires dithering, etc. your effective dots per inch just dropped to something like 300 or 600. So, do photo printers look like crap because they're 300 dots per inch or is it more like they've got a poor implementation of color representation? I suspect that Polaroid's photo printer prints pretty good (I wouldn't know- never saw a print from it...) because they're using their instant film as the print media... It would be true color, etc.
HP, Epson, and Canon already HAVE inkjet printers that do this.