I'm running Windows 2000 Professional with DirectX 8.1. Seems like I'm immune as, on this OS, only 7.0 and 9.0a are effected.
The complete list of effected Windows/DirectX combinations are as follows:
Microsoft DirectX® 5.2 on Windows 98 Microsoft DirectX 6.1 on Windows 98 SE Microsoft DirectX 7.0a on Windows Millennium Edition Microsoft DirectX 7.0 on Windows 2000 Microsoft DirectX 8.1 on Windows XP Microsoft DirectX 8.1 on Windows Server 2003 Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows Millennium Edition Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows 2000 Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows XP Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows Server 2003 Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 with either Windows Media Player 6.4 or Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 installed. Microsoft Windows NT 4.0, Terminal Server Edition with either Windows Media Player 6.4 or Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 installed.
Not every possible Windows configuration but probably a majority of them.
Seriously, you've not been here much recently have you?
Number 1 on the list should be "SCO claims to own the world's code, everyone else laughs in their face". How in hell did you miss that one?
And Number 8 on your list must be a private joke - Linux releases of games are as frequent as blue moons. Perhaps they're making plenty of noise over at games.slashdot.org but they sure aren't making waves on the front page.
Also, I don't know where it would appear on your list but you forgot the "DCMA is evil, government should work for us not big corporations"-type articles. Or am I just imagining all these stories about Lexmark printers, etc? And, while we're at it why not add the "Yet another stupid software patent granted" story? That's a regular favourite too.
Add SCO, bump the Linux games, add DCMA and patents and call it a dozen.
Or, if you think that DCMA comes under "RIAA, et. al. are fawking us bad", (although I don't see how), just call your list the Big Ten.*
(*Yes, I do know how to count, this is a sports joke. If you're not familiar with the Big Ten, see how it works go to http://www.bigten.org/.)
Man, stop dissing Ozzy. He's not crazy, just eccentric.
In fact, if there's an Ozzy in the bunch it's Steve Jobs - they both like to think different. Although Jobs would probably prefer being compared to David Bowie.
1) You buy a M$ product. 2) I'll sue the heck out of you while you represent yourself and run up a huge legal bill. 3) Profit!!! (Then we split the money!)
=tkk
PS This is even better than the M$'s "instant cash rebate" on a product you could then instantly return.
Last time I checked, fraud was still criminal.
If this wasn't Microsoft, if it was any other company - say, Ford, GE or Coca Cola - would you even be suggesting this?
I know your post was supposed to be funny but getting a criminal record and possibly going to jail isn't a laughing matter.
Opera sucks. Firebird is just as fast and doesn't put a huge banner in your face. Only a moron pays $40 for a web brower, especially one as god-awful as Oprah.
Your whole argument seems to be that paying for anything when you can get something else that does the same job is only for morons.
If that's true it's a good thing for Ferrari/Porsche/Aston Martin/ Rolls Royce have plenty of rich dumb customers who don't know that they could buy a cheap Ford/GM/Crysler/Nissan/Skoda that'll work just as well.
Similarly, all those people who pay more than $5 per head on eating out at fancy restaurants are also morons. Don't they realise they could fill up on a Big Mac and fries rather than fillet steak? And what about those idiots who buy designer clothes when the bargains at TK Max will keep them just as warm?
God-awful? Only for morons? Just exactly what browser are you talking about here? You sure ain't talking about Opera.
Anyone who's used Opera for more than five minutes (and that's obviously not you) would never come to that conclusion - it's small, fast, innovative and feature-packed. Try saying that about any other browser available on all the major platforms.
Paying for a browser isn't for everyone - just as paying for a luxory car, gourmet meal or designer labels aren't either - but just because you don't see the benefits of using Opera (hint: open your eyes) that doesn't mean that that's true for everyone else.
Beer's just empty calories/joules. If you don't put it on then you don't have to burn it off.
2. Work at work, exercise at home or at the gym.
You're being paid to do a job at work, so do that. If you want a workout then the office isn't the place to do it.
If you carry on with your workplace workouts, at best people will think that you're an odd-ball. At worst you'll get labelled as someone who's too busy burning fat to do their real job or just too screwy to keep around. Either way, it can't enhance your standing with your co-workers, boss and HR department.
If you really must exercise during the day join a gym near work and go regularly, before or after work, or perhaps even lunchtime. At least that way you'll get into a rythym that will help you stay in shape.
So big that there's not a word for the number, huh?
How about I come up with a bigger number and give it a name? Say, 1 followed by 100 zeros (10 to the power 10) and call it something funky like, I dunno, a googol.
Huh? Whassat? Whatcha mean prior art? Someone thought of it already? Son of a...
$100,000 buys you 10 minutes of face-to-face time with Dubya and I bet a similar "donation" would get you some time with the guys at Red Hat, SuSe, etc.
But, of course, that's not what you wanted to hear. I'd check out their FAQs, ask questions in their relevant forums, usenet groups, etc. I'd imagine that each distribution has its own criteria for inclusion so your approach to one vendor might have to be completely different to your approach with another.
Whatever you do, bear in mind two (slightly paradoxical) things:
1. They probably get asked to include lots of software, some good, some bad and some downright ugly.
I know of one major magazine that was sent an application for inclusion on its cover disk that calculated sales taxes for you - by taking the figure you gave it and multiplying by the relevant amount. That's the chaff. You need to be the wheat. So make sure that your software is truly worth inclusion (Does anybody already have a similar offering in their distribution? How does yours differentiate itself? How is it superior?) before you start investing serious time and effort into promoting it.
Also, remember that there will be great pressure, both internal and external, for vendors to keep their distributions free of bloat. Even if your software is unique, does it really offer something that a significant proportion of the target audience will want and use? You could develop the best doll's house design software for Linux ever but if nobody wants to design doll's houses on their Linux machines then you're screwed.
2. If you really do have a product worthy of inclusion then persevere.
Once you find the distributions' relevant contacts, harrass and hassle them about it until you get some sort of feedback. If they say 'yes' that's great, but if they say 'no' ask why it's a not a go.
But remember, although it might be their jobs to deal with new submissions, it isn't their jobs to deal with crap. Don't be offensive, advesarial or overly aggressive and don't become a stalker (leaving two voicemails a day is a no-no) or the only answer you'll ever get is 'no'.
Of course, if you really want to see the links that the parent article refers to, it can be done. I would tell you how here but it would kind of defeat the reasons for hometheaterforum.com's clever anti-slashdotting defence. Besides, it's not as if isn't bleeding obvious how to look at those pages if you really want to.
To add an extra output a manufacturer has to incorporate additional technology, redesign circuitry and the backpanel, test the whole setup, etc.
This isn't a fantastic amount to do - after all, this is probably a minor upgrade to most manufacturers - but it is rather pointless if 99.99 percent of your target audience won't even know what the port can be used for, let alone actually use it.
And why spend the time and effort incorporating an $5 (for argument's sake) upgrade if it makes next to no difference on how many units you'll sell? Right now, that $5 pe4r unit is lost profit in what's already a very cut-throat industry.
As DVI is a fairly new development (at least to the average home electronics consumer) it'll be a while before there's a major demand for DVI outputs on DVD players, etc. Gradually though, the major manufacturers will add DVI support, initially at the top of their ranges, then later throughout their catalogues.
In the end, it comes down to supply and demand. Right now, there's very little demand for DVI support. But you can bet the farm that by the time there actually is critical mass demand for DVI support it'll be there across the board.
Yes, I appreciate that but the poster to whom I was replying made it clear that RFIDs can be abused but completely missed (or ignored) the fact that the potential for abuse exists in Woz's local network.
It is double standards (or perhaps just naive) to suggest that RFIDs can be abused but yet applaud Woz's efforts - "You go Woz!", as the original poster put it - without reservation all in the same breath.
I'm sorry, but that sure sounds like hypocrisy to me. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are that it's a duck.
RFID's are a tool. As such they can be useful or they can be abused just like any other tool. (cars, pharmaceuticals, guns, databases etc...etc...etc...). What Woz has done is created a paradigm whereby individuals can harness the power of this technology to enable their lives through their own choice as opposed to RFID technology being used without permission or knowledge.
That's right, a tool. But how is crying about RFIDs when they're used by businesses to track inventory evil yet Woz (or anyone else in his area) using them to possibly track when residents have left their houses empty good?
Yeah and swimming halls can freely put cameras in the showers?
Just because they are providing the service, doesn't mean that they can do anything with your private information.
There's such a thing as expectation of privacy. You've every right to expect privacy in a shower but you've no right to expect privacy in a shop, restaurant, public highway or plane seat.
Why? Because, unless you're invisible, people can see you in a shop, restaurant, public highway or plane seat. If this is a problem for you I suggest that you do one of the following:
1. never leave the house; or 2. learn how to become invisible.
Why do I need television when radio works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Why do I want a phone when a telegraph works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Yes, things are expensive and buggy when they first hit the scene, but give them a few years and they will go down in cost and go up in reliability.
1. There's a world of difference between radio and television.
Would Orson Welles' War of the Worlds radio broadcast had as great an effect on the public if it had been on TV? Would it have fooled anyone? I don't think so.
Similarly, would the Apollo moon landings been as appealling to a mass audience without TV footage of the takeoff, the landings themselves and the final splashdowns? Would even the most poetic of writers truly be able to describe the awesome power and dramatic effect of a nuclear detonation as effectively as a few seconds of TV coverage? Could the horrific events of September 11th be as accurately portrayed on radio as they were on TV? Not in a million years.
TV and radio are totally different mediums. There's some crossover in their programming but they essentially serve different functions - I can't remember radio broadcasters ever putting on live coverage of, say, golf, swimming or a marathon, and it's been a long time since any radio channel devoted any time to kids' programmes.
2. A phone call is an instantaneious, live, convenient two-way method of communication. A telegraph is not.
Last time I checked, people don't have telegraph stations in their homes. There's a reason why.
3. If you had read my original post properly you would have read this line:
"Right now, with no decent applications, 3G is a joke."
Please don't tell me that you don't understand what "right now" or "decent applications" mean.
The difference between TV and radio or between telephones and telegraphs is chalk and cheese. The difference between an audio only phone and a video phone (assuming that the person that you're talking to has a similar phone, that you're making a video call, etc) isn't that great.
Even if 3G was offering Dick Tracy-style wrist video phones it wouldn't be of significantly greater benefit and use than the previous generation of mobile phones. At the end of the day, it's still just a phone.
(And, please, don't tell me you don't understand what "significantly greater benefit and use" means.)
Never have I seen a new technology that was more hyped up but less uselss than 3G.
The marketing people behind these products seem to have forgotten that the whole point of having a mobile phone is so that you can talk to people.
Why do I need video calling when audio calling works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Why do I need picture messaging when text messaging (SMS) works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Why do I need to be able to slowly download movie trailers, news and sports clips to watch on a tiny screen when I can watch those things on my TV or PC at a fraction of the cost?
Right now, with no decent applications, 3G is a joke. The only thing I've seen that even demonstrates a good use of this technology is doctors sending each other picture messages of patients' X-rays when looking for a second opinion. I guess it could be useful to other professionals too, such as estate agents, but for the price you pay to send a picture message right now you'd have to be mad to use it constantly like it was a digital camera.
If you've got money to burn then go ahead and buy one of these phones. But if you've got that much money to waste then you can send me some too at the same time.
Seriously, without wanting to flame you, you need to learn how to read.
This is the quote I pulled:...'RF interference from consumer electronics is unlikely to have figured in more than a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.'...
Or, in other words RF interference is likely to have figured in a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.
Can't you handle the concept of a double negative?
If you don't think that RF interference is a possible issue - note, possible - then you've got your head in the sand. Never seen wireless devices suffer from or cause interference? Never seen the picture on a monitor distort because of the unshielded speakers or mobile phone next to it?
Your "prove it's a problem first" attitude is riduclous. What if tomorrow RF interference causes your parents' plane to crash and burn and then the link between the two is proved six months from now? Are you telling me that you wouldn't sue the airline or seek any kind of compensation even if you knew that the airline was aware that there was a possible safety risk that they were willfully ignoring?
Can you honestly say that you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "well, there wasn't any proven link at the time of the crash, so it's OK"? Do you honestly think everyone else would react the same way at the loss of their loved ones? Moreover, in a litigous society, do you really believe that an airline could afford to operate that way?
If I gave you some Hydrochloric acid to drink and said that I didn't have proof that it would harm you (Hey, who knows how strong your digestive system is?), would you just drink it? Or would you err on the side of caution?
And I have to laugh when you suggest that airlines should be looking at ways to make their aircraft resistant to such signals. Don't you think that the commercial carriers have bigger things to worry about? Like perhaps whether or not they're going to be in business in twelve months time? This is an industry heavily in recession and you seem to think that they could pluck the cash needed to evaluate such systems and retrofit them to their fleets out of thin air.
You should try living in the real world for a change.
Just as well that you posted as an AC rather than under your account. Because, if you had logged in you'd look pretty dumb right now.
The point isn't to stop someone who already knows my name and perhaps my address from finding out more about me - I realise that someone determined enough who already has that information can use offline and online sources to find out even more. Rather the point is to stop my details falling into the hands of someone who wants to find a new identity to steal for fraud, etc.
Let's look at what might be thrown out of the average household: utility bills and other bills, bank statements, insurance details, etc. Even brochures, catalogs and junk mail can tell someone something about you beyond the basics. If I know where you shop, how you shop there and how you pay for the items - and all because you were kind enough to leave all that information out where I could find it - and if I know that then I can do a lot of damage to your credit.
This isn't paranoia for paranoia's sake - like I said, this kind of casual identity theft and fraud has actually happened to me in the past. If I didn't take steps to minimise the chances of it happening again then you could call me stupid. But for taking small, sensible precautions? I don't think so.
I have one at home and use it to shred all the parts of correspondence that contains personal information.
I've had someone use my personal details to "buy" something in a store before (albeit with some pretty out of date info) and I'm not going to make it easy for someone to try that again.
The name and address portion of any envelope, all old bills, bank statements, etc get shredded and then those shredded segments get burned on an occassional bonfire.
It's a little bit of work for a lot of peace of mind.
...'RF interference from consumer electronics is unlikely to have figured in more than a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.'...
If you don't mind adding to your chances of being in that few percent then, by all means, be my guest and keep that phone/notebook/whatever switched on when you're asked to have it switched off.
On the other hand, if you want to minimise your chances of being in that few percent, switch off your device when asked to. A few minutes with your phone/notebook/whatever off isn't going to kill you but a few minutes with it on just might.
When travelling, your priority should be getting from A to B safely. You wouldn't deliberately stick your head out of a train window as it was about to travel through a tunnel so why take similar risks (with the safety of others and not just yourself) when travelling on a plane?
Yeah, our rights are being take away - not by the administration though. It's the liberal aholes that want to take away our guns, our religion, and morality. And they use gobbly gook eletists nonsence talk to make there point.
1. What morality?
Flaming the AC who you're replying to an "ahole" just for using humour to make his point is what you call moral is it? I thought using profanities was one of the things that people with morality didn't do.
2. Since when did "liberal" become an insult?
"Liberal", "liberty" - spot the connection? Look up the dictionary definition of "liberal". I'd be suspicious of anyone who said he wasn't liberal.
Somewhere along the line, the American right hijacked the word, and now they use it as a derrogatory label to pin on people on the left that they can't pin anything more damning on.
It's funny, it really is. What's next - insulting someone by calling them a "democrat"?
I'd tear the rest of your post apart too (You think that liberals are attacking your religion? How so? By respecting the beliefs of others too?) but I really can't be bothered to argue with people who claim the moral high ground but yet defend it from the gutter.
What rights, specifically, did you used to enjoy but no longer are able to, due to Bush? Oh, you can't name anything? Your life is the same as it used to be? What a surprise.
Did I actually mention Dubya in my post? What makes you think I'm talking about him alone?
Let's see. Perhaps you've heard of the USA PATRIOT Act for starters?
Your government's almost unlimited right to spy on you and your actions without having to first provide a court with good reasons why doesn't worry you?
Or perhaps you've not heard about that one. I guess the DCMA passed you by too.
Wake up, smell the coffee and take a good look at the America you live in. It's nowhere near as free a country as you would like to think.
"...government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
What with the general assaults on personal freedoms, Abraham Lincoln and the other Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. Democracy isn't dead, but it isn't exactly at its zenith right now, least of all in the USA.
Can anyone think of a time when the freedoms of the average American were more at threat from their own government?
Like I've said before, the ideal of America is beautiful, it's just the reality that's becoming fubar.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm running Windows 2000 Professional with DirectX 8.1. Seems like I'm immune as, on this OS, only 7.0 and 9.0a are effected.
The complete list of effected Windows/DirectX combinations are as follows:
Microsoft DirectX® 5.2 on Windows 98
Microsoft DirectX 6.1 on Windows 98 SE
Microsoft DirectX 7.0a on Windows Millennium Edition
Microsoft DirectX 7.0 on Windows 2000
Microsoft DirectX 8.1 on Windows XP
Microsoft DirectX 8.1 on Windows Server 2003
Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows Millennium Edition
Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows 2000
Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows XP
Microsoft DirectX 9.0a when installed on Windows Server 2003
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 with either Windows Media Player 6.4 or Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 installed.
Microsoft Windows NT 4.0, Terminal Server Edition with either Windows Media Player 6.4 or Internet Explorer 6 Service Pack 1 installed.
Not every possible Windows configuration but probably a majority of them.
Check the relevant technical bulletin for more info.
Seriously, you've not been here much recently have you?
Number 1 on the list should be "SCO claims to own the world's code, everyone else laughs in their face". How in hell did you miss that one?
And Number 8 on your list must be a private joke - Linux releases of games are as frequent as blue moons. Perhaps they're making plenty of noise over at games.slashdot.org but they sure aren't making waves on the front page.
Also, I don't know where it would appear on your list but you forgot the "DCMA is evil, government should work for us not big corporations"-type articles. Or am I just imagining all these stories about Lexmark printers, etc? And, while we're at it why not add the "Yet another stupid software patent granted" story? That's a regular favourite too.
Add SCO, bump the Linux games, add DCMA and patents and call it a dozen.
Or, if you think that DCMA comes under "RIAA, et. al. are fawking us bad", (although I don't see how), just call your list the Big Ten.*
(*Yes, I do know how to count, this is a sports joke. If you're not familiar with the Big Ten, see how it works go to http://www.bigten.org/.)
Man, stop dissing Ozzy. He's not crazy, just eccentric.
In fact, if there's an Ozzy in the bunch it's Steve Jobs - they both like to think different. Although Jobs would probably prefer being compared to David Bowie.
1) You buy a M$ product.
2) I'll sue the heck out of you while you represent yourself and run up a huge legal bill.
3) Profit!!! (Then we split the money!)
=tkk
PS This is even better than the M$'s "instant cash rebate" on a product you could then instantly return.
Last time I checked, fraud was still criminal.
If this wasn't Microsoft, if it was any other company - say, Ford, GE or Coca Cola - would you even be suggesting this?
I know your post was supposed to be funny but getting a criminal record and possibly going to jail isn't a laughing matter.
Opera sucks. Firebird is just as fast and doesn't put a huge banner in your face. Only a moron pays $40 for a web brower, especially one as god-awful as Oprah.
Your whole argument seems to be that paying for anything when you can get something else that does the same job is only for morons.
If that's true it's a good thing for Ferrari/Porsche/Aston Martin/ Rolls Royce have plenty of rich dumb customers who don't know that they could buy a cheap Ford/GM/Crysler/Nissan/Skoda that'll work just as well.
Similarly, all those people who pay more than $5 per head on eating out at fancy restaurants are also morons. Don't they realise they could fill up on a Big Mac and fries rather than fillet steak? And what about those idiots who buy designer clothes when the bargains at TK Max will keep them just as warm?
God-awful? Only for morons? Just exactly what browser are you talking about here? You sure ain't talking about Opera.
Anyone who's used Opera for more than five minutes (and that's obviously not you) would never come to that conclusion - it's small, fast, innovative and feature-packed. Try saying that about any other browser available on all the major platforms.
Paying for a browser isn't for everyone - just as paying for a luxory car, gourmet meal or designer labels aren't either - but just because you don't see the benefits of using Opera (hint: open your eyes) that doesn't mean that that's true for everyone else.
1. drink less beer.
Beer's just empty calories/joules. If you don't put it on then you don't have to burn it off.
2. Work at work, exercise at home or at the gym.
You're being paid to do a job at work, so do that. If you want a workout then the office isn't the place to do it.
If you carry on with your workplace workouts, at best people will think that you're an odd-ball. At worst you'll get labelled as someone who's too busy burning fat to do their real job or just too screwy to keep around. Either way, it can't enhance your standing with your co-workers, boss and HR department.
If you really must exercise during the day join a gym near work and go regularly, before or after work, or perhaps even lunchtime. At least that way you'll get into a rythym that will help you stay in shape.
That should, of course, read "10 to the power 100". Damn keyboard.
I wish I could claim to be the first to screw up a post on Slashdot but there's already a wealth of prior art for that...
So big that there's not a word for the number, huh?
How about I come up with a bigger number and give it a name? Say, 1 followed by 100 zeros (10 to the power 10) and call it something funky like, I dunno, a googol.
Huh? Whassat? Whatcha mean prior art? Someone thought of it already? Son of a...
I don't know about you but I was beginning to get worried by the lack of SCO stories.
I come to SCOdot.org for "SCO news for nerds" and "SCO stuff that matters", and when I don't get my daily fix I get withdrawl symptoms.
$100,000 buys you 10 minutes of face-to-face time with Dubya and I bet a similar "donation" would get you some time with the guys at Red Hat, SuSe, etc.
But, of course, that's not what you wanted to hear. I'd check out their FAQs, ask questions in their relevant forums, usenet groups, etc. I'd imagine that each distribution has its own criteria for inclusion so your approach to one vendor might have to be completely different to your approach with another.
Whatever you do, bear in mind two (slightly paradoxical) things:
1. They probably get asked to include lots of software, some good, some bad and some downright ugly.
I know of one major magazine that was sent an application for inclusion on its cover disk that calculated sales taxes for you - by taking the figure you gave it and multiplying by the relevant amount. That's the chaff. You need to be the wheat. So make sure that your software is truly worth inclusion (Does anybody already have a similar offering in their distribution? How does yours differentiate itself? How is it superior?) before you start investing serious time and effort into promoting it.
Also, remember that there will be great pressure, both internal and external, for vendors to keep their distributions free of bloat. Even if your software is unique, does it really offer something that a significant proportion of the target audience will want and use? You could develop the best doll's house design software for Linux ever but if nobody wants to design doll's houses on their Linux machines then you're screwed.
2. If you really do have a product worthy of inclusion then persevere.
Once you find the distributions' relevant contacts, harrass and hassle them about it until you get some sort of feedback. If they say 'yes' that's great, but if they say 'no' ask why it's a not a go.
But remember, although it might be their jobs to deal with new submissions, it isn't their jobs to deal with crap. Don't be offensive, advesarial or overly aggressive and don't become a stalker (leaving two voicemails a day is a no-no) or the only answer you'll ever get is 'no'.
Good luck.
Lovely! Those links are referred right back to Slashdot. That's one way to avoid a slashdotting.
s -its-going-to-slashdot. Says it all really.
Yeah, good for them. If you read the page that you're referred back to it get's more interesting: http://slashdot.org/slashdot-should-cache-article
Of course, if you really want to see the links that the parent article refers to, it can be done. I would tell you how here but it would kind of defeat the reasons for hometheaterforum.com's clever anti-slashdotting defence. Besides, it's not as if isn't bleeding obvious how to look at those pages if you really want to.
To add an extra output a manufacturer has to incorporate additional technology, redesign circuitry and the backpanel, test the whole setup, etc.
This isn't a fantastic amount to do - after all, this is probably a minor upgrade to most manufacturers - but it is rather pointless if 99.99 percent of your target audience won't even know what the port can be used for, let alone actually use it.
And why spend the time and effort incorporating an $5 (for argument's sake) upgrade if it makes next to no difference on how many units you'll sell? Right now, that $5 pe4r unit is lost profit in what's already a very cut-throat industry.
As DVI is a fairly new development (at least to the average home electronics consumer) it'll be a while before there's a major demand for DVI outputs on DVD players, etc. Gradually though, the major manufacturers will add DVI support, initially at the top of their ranges, then later throughout their catalogues.
In the end, it comes down to supply and demand. Right now, there's very little demand for DVI support. But you can bet the farm that by the time there actually is critical mass demand for DVI support it'll be there across the board.
Yes, I appreciate that but the poster to whom I was replying made it clear that RFIDs can be abused but completely missed (or ignored) the fact that the potential for abuse exists in Woz's local network.
It is double standards (or perhaps just naive) to suggest that RFIDs can be abused but yet applaud Woz's efforts - "You go Woz!", as the original poster put it - without reservation all in the same breath.
I'm sorry, but that sure sounds like hypocrisy to me. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are that it's a duck.
RFID's are a tool. As such they can be useful or they can be abused just like any other tool. (cars, pharmaceuticals, guns, databases etc...etc...etc...). What Woz has done is created a paradigm whereby individuals can harness the power of this technology to enable their lives through their own choice as opposed to RFID technology being used without permission or knowledge.
That's right, a tool. But how is crying about RFIDs when they're used by businesses to track inventory evil yet Woz (or anyone else in his area) using them to possibly track when residents have left their houses empty good?
Double standards or what.
Probably no point backing up "Home Alone 2."
I wouldn't go that far. Future generations will want to know exactly how information was extracted from Camp X-Ray prisoners so effectively.
I'm betting that they'll be a big demand for copies of that disc in history faculties and military academies in the not too distant future.
Yeah and swimming halls can freely put cameras in the showers?
Just because they are providing the service, doesn't mean that they can do anything with your private information.
There's such a thing as expectation of privacy. You've every right to expect privacy in a shower but you've no right to expect privacy in a shop, restaurant, public highway or plane seat.
Why? Because, unless you're invisible, people can see you in a shop, restaurant, public highway or plane seat. If this is a problem for you I suggest that you do one of the following:
1. never leave the house; or
2. learn how to become invisible.
Good luck with number 2.
Why do I need television when radio works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Why do I want a phone when a telegraph works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Yes, things are expensive and buggy when they first hit the scene, but give them a few years and they will go down in cost and go up in reliability.
1. There's a world of difference between radio and television.
Would Orson Welles' War of the Worlds radio broadcast had as great an effect on the public if it had been on TV? Would it have fooled anyone? I don't think so.
Similarly, would the Apollo moon landings been as appealling to a mass audience without TV footage of the takeoff, the landings themselves and the final splashdowns? Would even the most poetic of writers truly be able to describe the awesome power and dramatic effect of a nuclear detonation as effectively as a few seconds of TV coverage? Could the horrific events of September 11th be as accurately portrayed on radio as they were on TV? Not in a million years.
TV and radio are totally different mediums. There's some crossover in their programming but they essentially serve different functions - I can't remember radio broadcasters ever putting on live coverage of, say, golf, swimming or a marathon, and it's been a long time since any radio channel devoted any time to kids' programmes.
2. A phone call is an instantaneious, live, convenient two-way method of communication. A telegraph is not.
Last time I checked, people don't have telegraph stations in their homes. There's a reason why.
3. If you had read my original post properly you would have read this line:
"Right now, with no decent applications, 3G is a joke."
Please don't tell me that you don't understand what "right now" or "decent applications" mean.
The difference between TV and radio or between telephones and telegraphs is chalk and cheese. The difference between an audio only phone and a video phone (assuming that the person that you're talking to has a similar phone, that you're making a video call, etc) isn't that great.
Even if 3G was offering Dick Tracy-style wrist video phones it wouldn't be of significantly greater benefit and use than the previous generation of mobile phones. At the end of the day, it's still just a phone.
(And, please, don't tell me you don't understand what "significantly greater benefit and use" means.)
Never have I seen a new technology that was more hyped up but less uselss than 3G.
The marketing people behind these products seem to have forgotten that the whole point of having a mobile phone is so that you can talk to people.
Why do I need video calling when audio calling works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Why do I need picture messaging when text messaging (SMS) works just as well at a fraction of the cost?
Why do I need to be able to slowly download movie trailers, news and sports clips to watch on a tiny screen when I can watch those things on my TV or PC at a fraction of the cost?
Right now, with no decent applications, 3G is a joke. The only thing I've seen that even demonstrates a good use of this technology is doctors sending each other picture messages of patients' X-rays when looking for a second opinion. I guess it could be useful to other professionals too, such as estate agents, but for the price you pay to send a picture message right now you'd have to be mad to use it constantly like it was a digital camera.
If you've got money to burn then go ahead and buy one of these phones. But if you've got that much money to waste then you can send me some too at the same time.
Seriously, without wanting to flame you, you need to learn how to read.
...'RF interference from consumer electronics is unlikely to have figured in more than a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.'...
This is the quote I pulled:
Or, in other words RF interference is likely to have figured in a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.
Can't you handle the concept of a double negative?
If you don't think that RF interference is a possible issue - note, possible - then you've got your head in the sand. Never seen wireless devices suffer from or cause interference? Never seen the picture on a monitor distort because of the unshielded speakers or mobile phone next to it?
Your "prove it's a problem first" attitude is riduclous. What if tomorrow RF interference causes your parents' plane to crash and burn and then the link between the two is proved six months from now? Are you telling me that you wouldn't sue the airline or seek any kind of compensation even if you knew that the airline was aware that there was a possible safety risk that they were willfully ignoring?
Can you honestly say that you'd just shrug your shoulders and say "well, there wasn't any proven link at the time of the crash, so it's OK"? Do you honestly think everyone else would react the same way at the loss of their loved ones? Moreover, in a litigous society, do you really believe that an airline could afford to operate that way?
If I gave you some Hydrochloric acid to drink and said that I didn't have proof that it would harm you (Hey, who knows how strong your digestive system is?), would you just drink it? Or would you err on the side of caution?
And I have to laugh when you suggest that airlines should be looking at ways to make their aircraft resistant to such signals. Don't you think that the commercial carriers have bigger things to worry about? Like perhaps whether or not they're going to be in business in twelve months time? This is an industry heavily in recession and you seem to think that they could pluck the cash needed to evaluate such systems and retrofit them to their fleets out of thin air.
You should try living in the real world for a change.
Just as well that you posted as an AC rather than under your account. Because, if you had logged in you'd look pretty dumb right now.
The point isn't to stop someone who already knows my name and perhaps my address from finding out more about me - I realise that someone determined enough who already has that information can use offline and online sources to find out even more. Rather the point is to stop my details falling into the hands of someone who wants to find a new identity to steal for fraud, etc.
Let's look at what might be thrown out of the average household: utility bills and other bills, bank statements, insurance details, etc. Even brochures, catalogs and junk mail can tell someone something about you beyond the basics. If I know where you shop, how you shop there and how you pay for the items - and all because you were kind enough to leave all that information out where I could find it - and if I know that then I can do a lot of damage to your credit.
This isn't paranoia for paranoia's sake - like I said, this kind of casual identity theft and fraud has actually happened to me in the past. If I didn't take steps to minimise the chances of it happening again then you could call me stupid. But for taking small, sensible precautions? I don't think so.
I have one at home and use it to shred all the parts of correspondence that contains personal information.
I've had someone use my personal details to "buy" something in a store before (albeit with some pretty out of date info) and I'm not going to make it easy for someone to try that again.
The name and address portion of any envelope, all old bills, bank statements, etc get shredded and then those shredded segments get burned on an occassional bonfire.
It's a little bit of work for a lot of peace of mind.
...'RF interference from consumer electronics is unlikely to have figured in more than a few percent of commercial air accidents, if any at all, during the past 10 years.'...
If you don't mind adding to your chances of being in that few percent then, by all means, be my guest and keep that phone/notebook/whatever switched on when you're asked to have it switched off.
On the other hand, if you want to minimise your chances of being in that few percent, switch off your device when asked to. A few minutes with your phone/notebook/whatever off isn't going to kill you but a few minutes with it on just might.
When travelling, your priority should be getting from A to B safely. You wouldn't deliberately stick your head out of a train window as it was about to travel through a tunnel so why take similar risks (with the safety of others and not just yourself) when travelling on a plane?
Yeah, our rights are being take away - not by the administration though. It's the liberal aholes that want to take away our guns, our religion, and morality. And they use gobbly gook eletists nonsence talk to make there point.
1. What morality?
Flaming the AC who you're replying to an "ahole" just for using humour to make his point is what you call moral is it? I thought using profanities was one of the things that people with morality didn't do.
2. Since when did "liberal" become an insult?
"Liberal", "liberty" - spot the connection? Look up the dictionary definition of "liberal". I'd be suspicious of anyone who said he wasn't liberal.
Somewhere along the line, the American right hijacked the word, and now they use it as a derrogatory label to pin on people on the left that they can't pin anything more damning on.
It's funny, it really is. What's next - insulting someone by calling them a "democrat"?
I'd tear the rest of your post apart too (You think that liberals are attacking your religion? How so? By respecting the beliefs of others too?) but I really can't be bothered to argue with people who claim the moral high ground but yet defend it from the gutter.
What rights, specifically, did you used to enjoy but no longer are able to, due to Bush? Oh, you can't name anything? Your life is the same as it used to be? What a surprise.
Did I actually mention Dubya in my post? What makes you think I'm talking about him alone?
Let's see. Perhaps you've heard of the USA PATRIOT Act for starters?
Your government's almost unlimited right to spy on you and your actions without having to first provide a court with good reasons why doesn't worry you?
Or perhaps you've not heard about that one. I guess the DCMA passed you by too.
Wake up, smell the coffee and take a good look at the America you live in. It's nowhere near as free a country as you would like to think.
"...government of the people, by the people, for the people..."
What with the general assaults on personal freedoms, Abraham Lincoln and the other Founding Fathers must be spinning in their graves. Democracy isn't dead, but it isn't exactly at its zenith right now, least of all in the USA.
Can anyone think of a time when the freedoms of the average American were more at threat from their own government?
Like I've said before, the ideal of America is beautiful, it's just the reality that's becoming fubar.