Not to mention the mpeg4 standard was only recently finalized so people could implement it without worries of being incompatible with the final specification. You don't design a highly optimizaed appliance chip just for it to be out of spec as you start fabrication.
Point. Aren't most of these decoder chips somewhat general DSPs, with most of the decoder smarts in firmware? Or does the economics of video decoder chips make it more cost effective to hardwire the algorithms?
There is sufficient bandwidth in coax to deliver this kind of content and anything else you'd want to send
True. Just like fiber, though, it really depends on how advanced the transmitter and receiver connected to the cable is. Anyway, I'n not worried about the bandwidth of the coax. It is the use of.11g for video broadcast and the idea that you can use thin clients for playing graphics intensive games that triggered my bogon meter.
Now, 802.11 isn't coax, though. I seriously doubt its ability to deliver mpeg2, but mpeg4 should be no problem. An mpeg2 stream at 6mbps could be done with 800kbps of mpeg4 or less using appropriately high quality source material and encoding algorithms. Is there probability for artifacts? Yeah, of course. But there's artifacts in DVD and current digital cable or satellite TV so nobody would tell the difference anyway.
They were talking about 802.11g *broadcast* frames. Point to point traffic over 802.11 is ack'ed, so that the frame can be resent if the receiver missed it (sort of the WiFi equivalent of how good old half duplex ethernet handle collisions). Not so for broadcast frames.
802.11 broadcast frames are not ack'ed. UDP is a non-ack protocol. No ack, neither on L2 nor L3. I don't know how resilient MPEG4 is to packet loss, but I doubt that your TV will be very happy when someone calls you on your 2.4GHz wireless DECT phone.
Sure, you can replace the 802.11 MAC with something that is better suited for stream broadcast. But then they can't use commodity hardware for the implementation.
Now, considering the source states that coaxle bandwidth limitation is at 34mbps. If Wireless-G is rating at 54mbps, this means that the the 34 mbps can easily be incapsulated within the 802.11g connection.
54Mbps is the fastest possible modulation. To get the real throughput, you also have to take into account stuff like inter-frame pauses, packet header/trailer, etc. The real-world maximum speed is more like 22Mbps when you have good signal strength and there are no hidden nodes, interference or multipath issues.
Stuff to consider: this presentation stated that different uses will be running on different channels - in 802.11b there were 10 channels. I have not researched 802.11g to this extend, but I'll assume it's the same (if not better.) Each channel will be limited to this 54 mbps and therefore can encapsulate 540 mbps data.
802.11b can only use 3 non-interfering channels. That is, channel 1 and 2 interfere with each other. Only 1, 6 and 11 can be used at the same time without interfering..11g is the same.
Under the 802.11g wireless standard, which is capable of transmitting data at a rate up to 54mpbs
No, it isn't. Without any interference from other 2.4GHz devices, you can't really expect more than 22Mbps. And that is shared bandwidth - once you have two way connections between the AP and several client devices, they all share the bandwidth. If you have hidden node issues (one client can't hear one of the other clients talking to the AP) you have to go to RTS/CTS mode to avoid collisions which also decrease the effective throughput. There is also no proper QOS in 802.11/b/g, first come first served - on a wireless segment with moderate to heavy load, you can experience lag spikes if several stations wish to transmit at the same time.
The router will also broadcast a connectionless stream under the UDP/IP protocol to devices such as televisions. This connectionless stream will be broadcasted in real-time, continuously, whether a device is "listening" or not, so several devices (e.g. televisions) can simply listen in when they are turned on without having to send a special signal to the box.
Hold on. Will the cable box translate MPEG2 streams received from the cable side to video frames and broadcast those to 802.11g enabled TVs, or will it just broadcast the MPEG2 stream?
In scenario one - have they done the math on how much bandwidth this will require? Not to mention the cost of upgrading your TV to receive raw video frames over 802.11g?
In scenario 2 - have they considered the cost of adding the MPEG2 and 802.11g hardware to the TV? What about MPEG2 artifacts if some frames are lost?
When broadcasting over wireless, you have to take into account the maximum speed of the client with worst signal quality. You can't expect to use 54Mbps modulation if you want the TV at the other end of the house to receive the signal with low packet loss. You can't rely on always being able to use 54Mbps (22Mbps throughput) if you want reliable broadcast to other devices in the household.
What makes cable gaming different from existing gaming networks is that with existing gaming networks, all processing is done locally on the user's own machine. With cable gaming, the required processing is done by the company's machines. This minimizes the actual amount of bandwidth required to travel along physical cable lines, as well as negates the need for a game processor on the consumer end (i.e. a game console; Xbox, Playstation, etc.). The only additional hardware required on the consumer's end is a minimal amount of Random Access Memory (RAM) onboard the digital cable box that acts as buffer memory to ensure a smooth, seamless gaming experience.
Sending complete video frames through the cable net is somehow less bandwidth consuming than sending UDP packets containing the state of the game? Even assuming an MPEG2 video stream, I don't buy that without seeing hard numbers. I would also worry a bit about latency.
The idea to use available bandwidth on the cable to provide new services is intriguing, and should definately be explored. But I think that the engineering needed to make something like this work is a bit higher than what the paper assumes.
So, you are saying that a nation has the right to grant itself juristiction over another nation's people and territory with out the need for treaty agreement or UN resolution. Makes rather a mockery of the concept of soverign nation states, does it not?
Well. If I make a one man state I can make whatever laws and issue any judgements I like. I can find His Billness guilty of being a nasty man and order him to be thrown in jail until Microsoft is broken up. However, without any treaties existing between my state and the US, that judgement is worth nothing in the US and US courts are free to ignore it. If Bill steps on my soil, however...
That is why sane international treaties are important. (And why more people should care about stuff like the Hague treaty on private international law).
No, actually...with a WAP there's no real way to limit the access to the network. That's one of the drawbacks of wireless. Security consists solely of a key.
Huh? WEP, MAC authorization tables, a firewall behind the access point only allowing IPsec traffic through... There are lots of ways to secure a wireless segment of your network.
It's not like a regular network where you can limit it physically.
I thought we were talking about the definition of legitimate/illegitimate access to resources on the Internet, and how a reasonable person would be able to tell which is which.
The problem with that idea is that, much as in real life, there are too many people that will abuse what is open.
I think you are missing the context. The question is: "if a service is not protected in any way, would it be digital breaking and entering if someone discovered that service and used it?". My view is that it should not be illegal to use a resource that has been made publically available (whether intentional or because of a crappy admin) with no sort of authentication.
I am not asking server admins to open their mail relays. I am saying that if someone discovers an open relay (or an open wireless access point, or an unprotected webpage, or an open.NET service), the law should say that accessing the service/resource is not the same as unauthorized access.
One of the biggest reasons that systems AREN'T open is because people abused the system when they were. Once upon a time almost all mail servers open. Sounds unbelievable, but it's true. It wasn't until people started exploiting the open servers to send spam or viruses that servers really started getting locked down. It's sad that things have to be this way, but that's the world we live in.
You think I don't know that? In the old days there were open FTP sites with anonymous write access at many universities. DNS servers allowed zone-transfers from anywhere. Mail relays were open. Usenet servers were open.
This worked because the majority of the people with 'net access in those days understood that the services would disappear if abused.
Is a spammer unauthorized to use an open relay. I definately think its unethical, but think about it for a second. The admin set up the mail sever as an open relay. Now did he purposely set it up this way, or was it defaulted that he wouldnt have wanted. If the person set it up to allow others to use it, maybe for some remote users. But he didnt intend the general public to use it.
This point is also relevant with regards to wireless access. Is the fact that an access point allows you to associate with it and a DHCP server provides network settings for you mean that it is ok for you to access the network?
My personal view is that the Internet should default to open - if there are no barriers (whether effective or ineffective), then the default assumption should be that the administrator/installer/owner intended for the resource to be available to the Internet at large. Otherwise, it would become a legal minefield just to surf, let alone turning on your laptop with a wireless card in the middle of Wall Street. The effect is that the owner of a resource has an obligation to block/deny access if he does not intend for it to be publically available.
That goes both for wireless access point and mail relays.
It is quite frustrating seeing you not get the point.
You are using primitives implemented in the 3D GPU hardware to accelerate 2D effects. A state of the art 3D GPU like the Nvidia FX line is really a highly programmable graphics renderer. That renderer can be used for Doom3, or it can be used for drawing a 2D desktop with lightning fast font smoothing, window scaling, etc.
The graphics chips companies are spending a lot more money on improving performance on the 3D GPU hardware than they are on 2D acceleration. Since the 3D part is so much faster, using the 3D hardware to draw a 2D desktop gives you better performance.
But I guess all spammers think they have a justification to send their unsolicited emails.
unsolicited adj : not requested; "an unsolicited nomination" [syn: {unsought}]
I'm not advocating the use of spamback lists, but I think there is a difference between people who use spiders to harvest mail addresses and people who make a list of people they have received uce from.
That's why I think no one should send unsolicited emails for wathever reason, because people who don't see the difference between `evil' and `other' spam can use your behaviour as an excuse to send spam themselves. (They shouldn't, but they will.)
The sticky point is determining what is unsolicited and what isn't.
If you send me an offer for viagra, you obviously seek a business relationship with me. If I send you an offer back, is that really unsolicited?
Speaking of which.. Does anyone happen to know whether there is any truth to the rumour that an ISDN phone can be set to off hook from the switch (i.e., as in activating the microphone of the phone in your house without the phone ringing)?
Presumably used in hostage situations if the police wants to hear what is going on inside the house.
But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
I don't know the specifics, but I do know that several GSM cell companies in Europe had to spend a considerable lump of money some years ago to upgrade their networks in order to comply with wiretap requirements.
Is it just me, or is this another great reason to buy cheaper, better network equipment from someone else?
I don't like the thought of wiretapping capabilities added to network gear either.
However, I can't really fault Cisco here - ISPs, and especially VoIP providers, are or will soon be required to provide wiretapping facilities for law enforcement agencies.
When the company you are running is required by law to provide wiretaps when you receive a court order, you need to buy equipment that can do just that. Nothing really new here, this happened both to the old telcos and the cell providers. Cell providers here in Norway actually had to spend a lot of money on extra equipment to comply with wiretapping requirements.
I think it is better for someone like Cisco to make a technically sound open standard for this, than for FBI to crash the party four years down the line and mandate a solution of their own design.
And before someone goes rabid - I *don't* like wiretapping in general, and the lower cost of digital wiretapping is a grave concern if the law doesn't have proper checks and balances for when the police can take a peek at your Internet connection. However, search warrants, stakeouts and phone wiretapping is a fact of life and the law will require ISPs and other communication providers of the future to provide equivalent services.
If you are concerned, read about opportunistic encryption and throw some software or programming hours in the direction of FreeS/Wan.
They are (naturally) concerned about vendor lock-in
Isn't this the real reason Microsoft started developing Palladium in the first place?
Me thinks the real reason is that MS wants Windows to be the delivery platform of choice for Content(TM).
Universal: It would be dang nice, and cheaper to boot, if we could sell streaming access to our movies over da Intanet. But how do we keep our propr'ty off them P2P networks?
MS: Take a look at this here Palladium.
Universal: That's dang nifty there, MS! An' this system is supported by all new PeeCees out there?
MS: Well. 90%, give or take some. That last 10% is just penguin crazy pirates anyway, so there's no big loss.
Universal: You got yerselves a streaming business deal, MS!
With this new approach, Microsoft could very easily limit the software that you run on the OS to be only MS and MS approved software, "for your own protection".
Let's nip this one in its bud, shall we?
The Technology Formerly Known as Palladium does not, at least according to current information from MS, require code signing for an application to run on hardware that supports TTFKP.
At the same time, TTFKP does not protect you from the garden variety virii, spam, buffer overflows and other nastyness. It only protects and arbitrates access to data hidden in a cryptographic vault - a vault where *you* don't have the keys.
Who cares what they'll accept? If they don't like it, they can build their own computers and pay five times as much for them. About time they remembered their place in the world.
This smells like an obvious troll, but in case you're not:
Where do you think the major chip fabs are today?
Where do you think most of the chipset and support chip designers are today? Where do you think the CPU and computer designers of tomorrow will be?
Which country has lots of cheap programmers today?
The only stronghold that the US has today is in high-end CPU, 3D graphics, communication chips and software. All the rest of the hardware know-how and manufacturing is migrating east, and Linux removes the barrier to entry on the software side.
In view of the trade deficit and recent actions by the US, I'd respectfully ask that you change that pecking order list a bit.
1. Is palladium optional for the SO? Could Linux or Winshit98 be installed on a Palladium box w/ no ill effects?
Yes. Palladium can be (almost completely) disabled. If you don't want to use the Palladium subsystem, you don't have to.
On the other hand, you won't be able to use/purchase/access Palladium protected software/content - that's the big hook to get people using the crap.
2. Is palladium optional for developers? Can "Joe Shareware" still release his software w/out paying an evil corporation for the right to sell it?
Yes. As long as you don't want your code running in the Palladium subsystem, I think. (Details from MS is kind of sketchy here, but signing will never be a requirement for running software that does not touch protected files/content/processes in unprotected mode)
3. Is there any way whatsoever in which this would help Joe User or Joe Hacker(not to be confused with Joe Cracker)?
Well.. It does provide a vault for you to keep your VISA card et.al. and be quite confident that software you do not trust gains access to it (that is, if there are no security holes in P).
On the other hand, it also provides this feature for 3rd parties - storing untamperable software and content on your computer.
4. Will this be integrated on Sparc and PowerPC or just PCs? Is AMD accepting this BS or just Intel?
The last I heard, just PCs.
TCPA and whatever-its-less-democratic-sibling-is-called has made noise about making a trusted computing standard for other devices, like next gen. cell phones, handheld devices, et.al.
5. Who will be in charge of licensing keys for palladium software?
Dunno. Maybe a patent pool, similar to MPEG4. We don't know yet.
Take care, and may you still be master of your own bytes.
All of the special stuff that specific vendors can do is in the hardware itself, while the drivers just provide an interface to that hardware. Any special tricks that the drivers have are probably either just specific parts written in assembly to make them faster or cheats like turning off certain features at certain times to make the frame rate higher while hoping the users won't notice the difference in quality.
Do you have proof for that? i.e. that all the performance gains in newer drivers are either cheating or assembly and not enhanced algorithms?
Besides, I would guess that parts of the source of high-end OpenGL drivers are licensed from SGI and it would be impossible to open source those parts without renegotiating the license(s).
My very narrow point was in direct rebuttal to the erroneous statement that a company can't expect to sell something publicly and keep something secret.
Bull.
They might try to make it as hard as possible for people that buy the product to discover the secret.
However, if someone then discovers this secret, a judge should not consider it a misappropriation of trade secrets since there is no bond of confidentiality between the manufacturer and the customer.
If you have a secret embedded in a product you sell publicly, you can protect yourself by obfuscation but not by law.
As long as they don't publish or make them generally available - then the law doesn't (or shouldn't) protect you if someone out there discovers the secret and tells the world about it.
It is not illegal to appropriate someone elses trade secrets, it is only illegal if you misappropriate the trade secret.
To quote:
"Misappropriation " means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who has utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret ad that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
One programs goal would be to decrease thermal radiation by rewriting and redesigning circuitry. The other's goal would be to increase data throughput by doing the same things. How would they reconcile?
*snip*
Now, if the two programs were not given explicit instructions on how to work cooperatively, they might do such things as form infinite loops by changing something the other program has already changed.
*snip*
Doesn't this sound like the equivelant of a neurosis?
No. That sounds like a stupid programmer that wrote two incompatible programs working at the same time on the same data without proper locking or arbitration.
An illogical program or system will behave illogically, no surprise there.
Slashdot Mirror
Not to mention the mpeg4 standard was only recently finalized so people could implement it without worries of being incompatible with the final specification. You don't design a highly optimizaed appliance chip just for it to be out of spec as you start fabrication.
.11g for video broadcast and the idea that you can use thin clients for playing graphics intensive games that triggered my bogon meter.
Point. Aren't most of these decoder chips somewhat general DSPs, with most of the decoder smarts in firmware? Or does the economics of video decoder chips make it more cost effective to hardwire the algorithms?
There is sufficient bandwidth in coax to deliver this kind of content and anything else you'd want to send
True. Just like fiber, though, it really depends on how advanced the transmitter and receiver connected to the cable is. Anyway, I'n not worried about the bandwidth of the coax. It is the use of
Now, 802.11 isn't coax, though. I seriously doubt its ability to deliver mpeg2, but mpeg4 should be no problem. An mpeg2 stream at 6mbps could be done with 800kbps of mpeg4 or less using appropriately high quality source material and encoding algorithms. Is there probability for artifacts? Yeah, of course. But there's artifacts in DVD and current digital cable or satellite TV so nobody would tell the difference anyway.
They were talking about 802.11g *broadcast* frames. Point to point traffic over 802.11 is ack'ed, so that the frame can be resent if the receiver missed it (sort of the WiFi equivalent of how good old half duplex ethernet handle collisions). Not so for broadcast frames.
802.11 broadcast frames are not ack'ed. UDP is a non-ack protocol. No ack, neither on L2 nor L3. I don't know how resilient MPEG4 is to packet loss, but I doubt that your TV will be very happy when someone calls you on your 2.4GHz wireless DECT phone.
Sure, you can replace the 802.11 MAC with something that is better suited for stream broadcast. But then they can't use commodity hardware for the implementation.
Now, considering the source states that coaxle bandwidth limitation is at 34mbps. If Wireless-G is rating at 54mbps, this means that the the 34 mbps can easily be incapsulated within the 802.11g connection.
.11g is the same.
54Mbps is the fastest possible modulation. To get the real throughput, you also have to take into account stuff like inter-frame pauses, packet header/trailer, etc. The real-world maximum speed is more like 22Mbps when you have good signal strength and there are no hidden nodes, interference or multipath issues.
Stuff to consider: this presentation stated that different uses will be running on different channels - in 802.11b there were 10 channels. I have not researched 802.11g to this extend, but I'll assume it's the same (if not better.) Each channel will be limited to this 54 mbps and therefore can encapsulate 540 mbps data.
802.11b can only use 3 non-interfering channels. That is, channel 1 and 2 interfere with each other. Only 1, 6 and 11 can be used at the same time without interfering.
Under the 802.11g wireless standard, which is capable of transmitting data at a rate up to 54mpbs
No, it isn't. Without any interference from other 2.4GHz devices, you can't really expect more than 22Mbps. And that is shared bandwidth - once you have two way connections between the AP and several client devices, they all share the bandwidth. If you have hidden node issues (one client can't hear one of the other clients talking to the AP) you have to go to RTS/CTS mode to avoid collisions which also decrease the effective throughput. There is also no proper QOS in 802.11/b/g, first come first served - on a wireless segment with moderate to heavy load, you can experience lag spikes if several stations wish to transmit at the same time.
The router will also broadcast a connectionless stream under the UDP/IP protocol to devices such as televisions. This connectionless stream will be broadcasted in real-time, continuously, whether a device is "listening" or not, so several devices (e.g. televisions) can simply listen in when they are turned on without having to send a special signal to the box.
Hold on. Will the cable box translate MPEG2 streams received from the cable side to video frames and broadcast those to 802.11g enabled TVs, or will it just broadcast the MPEG2 stream?
In scenario one - have they done the math on how much bandwidth this will require? Not to mention the cost of upgrading your TV to receive raw video frames over 802.11g?
In scenario 2 - have they considered the cost of adding the MPEG2 and 802.11g hardware to the TV? What about MPEG2 artifacts if some frames are lost?
When broadcasting over wireless, you have to take into account the maximum speed of the client with worst signal quality. You can't expect to use 54Mbps modulation if you want the TV at the other end of the house to receive the signal with low packet loss. You can't rely on always being able to use 54Mbps (22Mbps throughput) if you want reliable broadcast to other devices in the household.
What makes cable gaming different from existing gaming networks is that with existing gaming networks, all processing is done locally on the user's own machine. With cable gaming, the required processing is done by the company's machines. This minimizes the actual amount of bandwidth required to travel along physical cable lines, as well as negates the need for a game processor on the consumer end (i.e. a game console; Xbox, Playstation, etc.). The only additional hardware required on the consumer's end is a minimal amount of Random Access Memory (RAM) onboard the digital cable box that acts as buffer memory to ensure a smooth, seamless gaming experience.
Sending complete video frames through the cable net is somehow less bandwidth consuming than sending UDP packets containing the state of the game? Even assuming an MPEG2 video stream, I don't buy that without seeing hard numbers. I would also worry a bit about latency.
The idea to use available bandwidth on the cable to provide new services is intriguing, and should definately be explored. But I think that the engineering needed to make something like this work is a bit higher than what the paper assumes.
So, you are saying that a nation has the right to grant itself juristiction over another nation's people and territory with out the need for treaty agreement or UN resolution. Makes rather a mockery of the concept of soverign nation states, does it not?
Well. If I make a one man state I can make whatever laws and issue any judgements I like. I can find His Billness guilty of being a nasty man and order him to be thrown in jail until Microsoft is broken up. However, without any treaties existing between my state and the US, that judgement is worth nothing in the US and US courts are free to ignore it. If Bill steps on my soil, however...
That is why sane international treaties are important. (And why more people should care about stuff like the Hague treaty on private international law).
Both UK and US are members of the Hague Conference on Private International Law
Yeah, what is happening to Hague? Last I heard it had stalled due to rather heavy disagreement.
No, actually...with a WAP there's no real way to limit the access to the network. That's one of the drawbacks of wireless. Security consists solely of a key.
.NET service), the law should say that accessing the service/resource is not the same as unauthorized access.
Huh? WEP, MAC authorization tables, a firewall behind the access point only allowing IPsec traffic through... There are lots of ways to secure a wireless segment of your network.
It's not like a regular network where you can limit it physically.
I thought we were talking about the definition of legitimate/illegitimate access to resources on the Internet, and how a reasonable person would be able to tell which is which.
The problem with that idea is that, much as in real life, there are too many people that will abuse what is open.
I think you are missing the context. The question is: "if a service is not protected in any way, would it be digital breaking and entering if someone discovered that service and used it?". My view is that it should not be illegal to use a resource that has been made publically available (whether intentional or because of a crappy admin) with no sort of authentication.
I am not asking server admins to open their mail relays. I am saying that if someone discovers an open relay (or an open wireless access point, or an unprotected webpage, or an open
One of the biggest reasons that systems AREN'T open is because people abused the system when they were. Once upon a time almost all mail servers open. Sounds unbelievable, but it's true. It wasn't until people started exploiting the open servers to send spam or viruses that servers really started getting locked down. It's sad that things have to be this way, but that's the world we live in.
You think I don't know that? In the old days there were open FTP sites with anonymous write access at many universities. DNS servers allowed zone-transfers from anywhere. Mail relays were open. Usenet servers were open.
This worked because the majority of the people with 'net access in those days understood that the services would disappear if abused.
Then came Eternal September.
Is a spammer unauthorized to use an open relay. I definately think its unethical, but think about it for a second. The admin set up the mail sever as an open relay. Now did he purposely set it up this way, or was it defaulted that he wouldnt have wanted. If the person set it up to allow others to use it, maybe for some remote users. But he didnt intend the general public to use it.
This point is also relevant with regards to wireless access. Is the fact that an access point allows you to associate with it and a DHCP server provides network settings for you mean that it is ok for you to access the network?
My personal view is that the Internet should default to open - if there are no barriers (whether effective or ineffective), then the default assumption should be that the administrator/installer/owner intended for the resource to be available to the Internet at large. Otherwise, it would become a legal minefield just to surf, let alone turning on your laptop with a wireless card in the middle of Wall Street. The effect is that the owner of a resource has an obligation to block/deny access if he does not intend for it to be publically available.
That goes both for wireless access point and mail relays.
You work it out...
It is quite frustrating seeing you not get the point.
You are using primitives implemented in the 3D GPU hardware to accelerate 2D effects. A state of the art 3D GPU like the Nvidia FX line is really a highly programmable graphics renderer. That renderer can be used for Doom3, or it can be used for drawing a 2D desktop with lightning fast font smoothing, window scaling, etc.
The graphics chips companies are spending a lot more money on improving performance on the 3D GPU hardware than they are on 2D acceleration. Since the 3D part is so much faster, using the 3D hardware to draw a 2D desktop gives you better performance.
I think it was Jeff Merkey. I don't remember the details, but there was an NDA involved.
A google for "Merkey ntfs linux nda" should put you on the right track.
Of course there is, what are talking about? Whip out this Beofulf cluster of yours, it's ideal for the task.
:-)
The above is probably a joke, but anyway.
1) Latency.
2) The bandwidth required to push the rendered pixels from the beowulf to the graphics card.
But I guess all spammers think they have a justification to send their unsolicited emails.
unsolicited adj : not requested; "an unsolicited nomination" [syn: {unsought}]
I'm not advocating the use of spamback lists, but I think there is a difference between people who use spiders to harvest mail addresses and people who make a list of people they have received uce from.
That's why I think no one should send unsolicited emails for wathever reason, because people who don't see the difference between `evil' and `other' spam can use your behaviour as an excuse to send spam themselves. (They shouldn't, but they will.)
The sticky point is determining what is unsolicited and what isn't.
If you send me an offer for viagra, you obviously seek a business relationship with me. If I send you an offer back, is that really unsolicited?
If people are sending spam to a spammer for this reason, I think they're not very different from the spammer himself.
I beg to differ. The anti-spammer is only sending mail to spammers, not to the rest of the world.
I.e. "By sending unsolicited email to me, you accept being added to my spamback list."
The difference is opt-in vs opt-out.
They don't go after the downloaders, they go after the providers.
(Downloading isn't illegal according to copyright law in at least a few european countries, but woe be to the person who distributes.)
Speaking of which.. Does anyone happen to know whether there is any truth to the rumour that an ISDN phone can be set to off hook from the switch (i.e., as in activating the microphone of the phone in your house without the phone ringing)?
Presumably used in hostage situations if the police wants to hear what is going on inside the house.
But this was back in '94, so I am sure something similar has been implemented somewhere.
I don't know the specifics, but I do know that several GSM cell companies in Europe had to spend a considerable lump of money some years ago to upgrade their networks in order to comply with wiretap requirements.
Is it just me, or is this another great reason to buy cheaper, better network equipment from someone else?
I don't like the thought of wiretapping capabilities added to network gear either.
However, I can't really fault Cisco here - ISPs, and especially VoIP providers, are or will soon be required to provide wiretapping facilities for law enforcement agencies.
When the company you are running is required by law to provide wiretaps when you receive a court order, you need to buy equipment that can do just that. Nothing really new here, this happened both to the old telcos and the cell providers. Cell providers here in Norway actually had to spend a lot of money on extra equipment to comply with wiretapping requirements.
I think it is better for someone like Cisco to make a technically sound open standard for this, than for FBI to crash the party four years down the line and mandate a solution of their own design.
And before someone goes rabid - I *don't* like wiretapping in general, and the lower cost of digital wiretapping is a grave concern if the law doesn't have proper checks and balances for when the police can take a peek at your Internet connection. However, search warrants, stakeouts and phone wiretapping is a fact of life and the law will require ISPs and other communication providers of the future to provide equivalent services.
If you are concerned, read about opportunistic encryption and throw some software or programming hours in the direction of FreeS/Wan.
Isn't this the real reason Microsoft started developing Palladium in the first place?
Me thinks the real reason is that MS wants Windows to be the delivery platform of choice for Content(TM).
Universal: It would be dang nice, and cheaper to boot, if we could sell streaming access to our movies over da Intanet. But how do we keep our propr'ty off them P2P networks?
MS: Take a look at this here Palladium.
Universal: That's dang nifty there, MS! An' this system is supported by all new PeeCees out there?
MS: Well. 90%, give or take some. That last 10% is just penguin crazy pirates anyway, so there's no big loss.
Universal: You got yerselves a streaming business deal, MS!
With this new approach, Microsoft could very easily limit the software that you run on the OS to be only MS and MS approved software, "for your own protection".
Let's nip this one in its bud, shall we?
The Technology Formerly Known as Palladium does not, at least according to current information from MS, require code signing for an application to run on hardware that supports TTFKP.
At the same time, TTFKP does not protect you from the garden variety virii, spam, buffer overflows and other nastyness. It only protects and arbitrates access to data hidden in a cryptographic vault - a vault where *you* don't have the keys.
Who cares what they'll accept? If they don't like it, they can build their own computers and pay five times as much for them. About time they remembered their place in the world.
This smells like an obvious troll, but in case you're not:
Where do you think the major chip fabs are today?
Where do you think most of the chipset and support chip designers are today? Where do you think the CPU and computer designers of tomorrow will be?
Which country has lots of cheap programmers today?
The only stronghold that the US has today is in high-end CPU, 3D graphics, communication chips and software. All the rest of the hardware know-how and manufacturing is migrating east, and Linux removes the barrier to entry on the software side.
In view of the trade deficit and recent actions by the US, I'd respectfully ask that you change that pecking order list a bit.
1. Is palladium optional for the SO? Could Linux or Winshit98 be installed on a Palladium box w/ no ill effects?
Yes. Palladium can be (almost completely) disabled. If you don't want to use the Palladium subsystem, you don't have to.
On the other hand, you won't be able to use/purchase/access Palladium protected software/content - that's the big hook to get people using the crap.
2. Is palladium optional for developers? Can "Joe Shareware" still release his software w/out paying an evil corporation for the right to sell it?
Yes. As long as you don't want your code running in the Palladium subsystem, I think. (Details from MS is kind of sketchy here, but signing will never be a requirement for running software that does not touch protected files/content/processes in unprotected mode)
3. Is there any way whatsoever in which this would help Joe User or Joe Hacker(not to be confused with Joe Cracker)?
Well.. It does provide a vault for you to keep your VISA card et.al. and be quite confident that software you do not trust gains access to it (that is, if there are no security holes in P).
On the other hand, it also provides this feature for 3rd parties - storing untamperable software and content on your computer.
4. Will this be integrated on Sparc and PowerPC or just PCs? Is AMD accepting this BS or just Intel?
The last I heard, just PCs.
TCPA and whatever-its-less-democratic-sibling-is-called has made noise about making a trusted computing standard for other devices, like next gen. cell phones, handheld devices, et.al.
5. Who will be in charge of licensing keys for palladium software?
Dunno. Maybe a patent pool, similar to MPEG4. We don't know yet.
Take care, and may you still be master of your own bytes.
All of the special stuff that specific vendors can do is in the hardware itself, while the drivers just provide an interface to that hardware. Any special tricks that the drivers have are probably either just specific parts written in assembly to make them faster or cheats like turning off certain features at certain times to make the frame rate higher while hoping the users won't notice the difference in quality.
Do you have proof for that? i.e. that all the performance gains in newer drivers are either cheating or assembly and not enhanced algorithms?
Besides, I would guess that parts of the source of high-end OpenGL drivers are licensed from SGI and it would be impossible to open source those parts without renegotiating the license(s).
Umm. 'cause the keys are on-chip? And the chip can (potentially) contain an endorsement key signed by the chip manufacturer.
My very narrow point was in direct rebuttal to the erroneous statement that a company can't expect to sell something publicly and keep something secret.
Bull.
They might try to make it as hard as possible for people that buy the product to discover the secret.
However, if someone then discovers this secret, a judge should not consider it a misappropriation of trade secrets since there is no bond of confidentiality between the manufacturer and the customer.
If you have a secret embedded in a product you sell publicly, you can protect yourself by obfuscation but not by law.
Every company is entitled to keep trade secrets.
As long as they don't publish or make them generally available - then the law doesn't (or shouldn't) protect you if someone out there discovers the secret and tells the world about it.
It is not illegal to appropriate someone elses trade secrets, it is only illegal if you misappropriate the trade secret.
To quote:
"Misappropriation " means: (i) acquisition of a trade secret of another by a person who knows or has reason to know that the trade secret was acquired by improper means; or (ii) disclosure or use of a trade secret of another without express or implied consent by a person who (A) used improper means to acquire knowledge of the trade secret; or (B) at the time of disclosure or use knew or had reason to know that his knowledge of the trade secret was (I) derived from or through a person who has utilized improper means to acquire it; (II) acquired under circumstances giving rise to a duty to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (III) derived from or through a person who owed a duty to the person seeking relief to maintain its secrecy or limit its use; or (C) before a material change of his position, knew or had reason to know that it was a trade secret ad that knowledge of it had been acquired by accident or mistake.
One programs goal would be to decrease thermal radiation by rewriting and redesigning circuitry. The other's goal would be to increase data throughput by doing the same things. How would they reconcile?
*snip*
Now, if the two programs were not given explicit instructions on how to work cooperatively, they might do such things as form infinite loops by changing something the other program has already changed.
*snip*
Doesn't this sound like the equivelant of a neurosis?
No. That sounds like a stupid programmer that wrote two incompatible programs working at the same time on the same data without proper locking or arbitration.
An illogical program or system will behave illogically, no surprise there.