Can you not see the utter absurdity of these two statements:
"Your information IS FUD AND OLD."
vs.
- There are several new Blu-ray releases that have very good picture quality.
- is that lots of releases are coming in few months that have either VC-1 or AVC(Mpeg4)
- there are several movies coming that are 50 GB DL Blu-ray releases.
So... how can my information be "FUD AND OLD" when it is -- in fact -- current? When Sony and its industry partners release material with modern codecs and press dual layer discs, perhaps then you'll have a point. Until then, I would say you simply have a vested interest in promoting Blu-Ray. The funny thing is that if you look through my comment history, you'll see that I was particularly excited about Blu-Ray until I actually saw a demonstration comparing it to HD-DVD. Oh, I'm sorry, I'll just have to close my lying eyes - clearly, they're FUD eyes.
A single layer blu-ray disc has ~25GB of capacity, of which almost 15% is used for uncompressed audio. This avsforum thread on the Samsung BDP-1000 is particularly illuminating on the issue of space constraints due to the mix of single layer discs with mpeg2 as the codec. --M
"hey took WAY too long to get to market. If the players had been available somewhere around 2000 to 2003[...]"
Mass manufacturing the blue laser required by both systems wasn't available in '02-'03 time span. In fact, recent reports of a blue laser shortage may limit Blu-ray and HD-DVD manufacturing for the near future. Also, the adoption of HDTV back in '02 was very slim - who would have bought that high definition content? One could argue they're still too early to be pushing HD media sales... --M
"Both Blu-ray and HDVDVD support the same codecs Mpeg2, mpeg 4 (h.264) and VC1 (Windows Media). For some reason Blu-ray creation software didn't support the other codecs initially, but the player does."
That's correct. However, the end result is the same. Films released on Blu-Ray format in mpeg2 look noticably worse than films released in mpeg4 or VC1 on HD-DVD. I was shocked at the difference in image quality between the two. So, perhaps blu-ray players do support modern codecs (avsforum has had a good deal of discussion on this matter at their blu-ray forum) - but the upshot is that blu-ray releases look terrible compared to HD-DVD. And Blu-Ray drives cost twice as much.
What would *you* buy? (well, *I* would buy neither - and wait for the format war to finish).
HD-DVD looks much better than Blu-Ray right now, primarily because HD-DVD uses a modern mpeg4 codec, while Sony chose to support the older mpeg2 codec. This is a shame. Blu-Ray, due to its higher capacity and throughput looked to be the clear winner. Sony *cough!* blu *cough!* it. But, as much as the/. community would like to believe, I don't think onerous DRM restrictions are the cause of this market failure. Frankly, the units cost too much, they lack good content, and the format war causes too much confusion risk for consumers. Why spend $500-$1000 on something that will be worthless in a year or less? Sony thought they had the game wrapped up with PS3. Now both formats look to lose.
Don't forget Asylum, which (regardless of what Wikipedia claims) was originally released on the TRS-80 in 1980 by Med Systems Software. Prior to Asylum, they released similar 3D maze games, Deathmaze 5000 and Labyrinth. The TRS-80 had a pixel resolution of 128x48, black & white. So... uh... no textures. And, oh yeah, why has everyone forgotten Battlezone?
Next: Why do kids in class have access to the Internet? I can see that it might be appropriate in a library, under supervision - but in class? Of course it would cause interruptions! What: are these kids expecting free wireless at school?
But this ignores the underlying question: is there reason for portable computing devices within the classroom? I think yes. The problem is not the computer, it is how teachers design curriculums with computing in mind. That is, they don't. Further, there's little software designed to help teach to a curriculum. Most teachers aren't programmers and wouldn't have time to develop good software even if they had programming skills. So, there's a large gap between what a computer could do to help teach students and how they are currently being used.
I would suggest that a laptop (or handheld) is best used for note taking. But with specialized software it could also help teach math, geography, foreign languages, etc. Providing etexts for coursework could be useful as well. But giving kids laptops with wireless internet? Whoa... bad idea.
I made no argument whatsoever. I posted links to two studies published in peer reviewed journals, each of which made an argument based on data their data collection and statistical methodology. I simply pointed to those studies and said: "hey, read this!" to the/. community. It is up to you to determine if you find the data, methodology, and conclusions of merit.
The rest of your comment is pure opinion, backed by absolutely nothing in the way of published research. You are certainly welcome to that opinion. But, given what you have posted, call me less than impressed.
Finally: did you read those studies? Because, if you did then you didn't understand them. And if you didn't then you're simply a fool. And not because you disagree with their conclusions. --M
Exactly right, correlation is not causation. However, in many cases it is the best possible result given the kind of data that can be collected. In this case the author was dealing with availability of porn vs. law enforcement case reports of rape. We know exactly how many case reports were filed, but how does one quantify porn availability? Of course, the process used was described in the Methods section of both studies. But, it's squishy like social science (rather than the porn kind of squishy) Also, how does one randomize the available data?
Thus, any conclusions drawn from this study are weak. However, note that I also posted a second study by a different group down the thread which found a similar correlation. Again, things that make you go hmmm - but not necessarily aha! --M
Yes, to have a discussion you do have to spell your argument out for me. Otherwise, I have no idea what you really mean. And linking to the definition of strawman doesn't help. Further, may I point out that I didn't author either of these studies, nor was I involved in them in any way. I simply posted an interesting link.
Perhaps you might read them, and post back a decent rebuttal. Asshat.
Nice strawman. Not all porn uses rape play acting. A better question would be "does porn increase promiscuity?"
Well then, have another study which looks at the increase in porn availability in Japan and contrasts that with the crime rate. Same conclusion.
"The most dramatic decrease in sex crimes was seen when attention was focused on the number and age of rapists and victims among younger groups (Table 2). We hypothesized that the increase in pornography, without age restriction and in comics, if it had any detrimental effect, would most negatively influence younger individuals. Just the opposite occurred. The number of juvenile offenders dramatically dropped every period reviewed from 1,803 perpetrators in 1972 to a low of 264 in 1995; a drop of some 85% (Table 1). The number of victims also decreased particularly among the females younger than 13 (Table 2). In 1972, 8.3% of the victims were younger than 13. In 1995 the percentage of victims younger than 13 years of age dropped to 4.0%."
Now, as to your assertion that these studies are "strawmen" arguments, would you please explain this assertion rather than just claiming it so? I don't see the strawman you allege. Next, how do you plan to gage an increase or decrease in promiscuity? Would that be by survey? If so, then good luck getting accurate data (you'll need it).
Well, if the study Porn Up, Rape Down is correct... then no. The author shows a strong correlation between increased access to pornography and a statistical reduction in reported rapes. Further, the author showed geographical correlations within the US whereby locally reduced access to pornography occurred in the same locations as areas with high rape rates.
Here's a point: ALL Mac OS X sales are upgrades because Mac OS X only runs on Macs which were already preloaded with OS X in the first place.
So how does your point refute mine? MacOS X is still cheaper to buy, whether upgrading from a bundled install with a Mac or purchasing outright to install on another Mac. Further, I can refute your point on bundling by simply pointing to the purchase of a used G3/G4 mac which came bundled with OS 9.
Yes, and most OEMs don't include installation disks with those OS bundles, but instead ship "reimaging" software to reinstall the system the OEM shipped state. Further, I doubt you will get a cheap copy of Vista/Premium, Vista/Business, or Vista/Ultimate bundled with your Dell PC. At least not at the OEM rate. You will pay the tiered price, even if it is cheaper than a boxed retail price. And - I argue - in either case it would have been cheaper just to buy a Mac.
That doesn't mean the Mac will do what you want. If you happen to need Windows for a specific application, by all means buy Windows. But you will be paying a premium to do so.
Well, that's an interesting point. Are they two separate product lines? They both run the same office software. They both claim some measure of compatibility going back to Windows 3.0 and Dos. But they are certainly separate code lines and are (were) differentiated products - much as the various Vista product lines are differentiated.
I would argue the long period between the XP and Vista releases are more akin to Apple's failed Copland release back in 1996. In both cases, progress with each codebase was hampered by backward compatibility requirements leading to an explosion in complexity. Apple gave up, while Microsoft kept slogging on (after throwing away a failed attempt back in '03).
However, even accepting your point that old Windows and WinNT are separate product lines, the history of their OS releases shows an average of ~2 years per release. This is well in line with Apple's release schedule.
Starting from the time Windows was actually usable:
* Windows 3.0: 1990 * Windows 3.1: 1992/3 (3.11 WFWW) * Windows/NT 3.1: 1993 * Windows 95: 1995 * Windows NT 4.0: 1996 * Windows 98: 1998 * Windows/ME: 2000 * Windows 2000: 2000 * Windows/XP: 2003 * Windows Vista: (~2007)
-----
So, it would appear to me that the gap between releases is limited to the timespan between the release of XP and Vista, and not due to differing release policies between Apple and Microsoft.
MacOS X comes preloaded on any Mac, just like with Windows. However, Microsoft also segments OEM prices depending on their relationship with each vendor, so it's impossible to compare with bundled MacOS X from Apple. Apple doesn't segment "upgrades" from new installations as they charge full price for each new major release. Perhaps I should have then compared Microsoft's "upgrade" price to Apple's full price. Still, it wouldn't matter, as Apple's release is still significantly cheaper.
Also, may I point out that MacOS X arrives in a full DVD installation set, unlike OEM Windows installs. Having original install media rather than OEM re-imaging software certainly makes life easier for the user.
* Windows Vista Home Basic, $199/$99.95 * Windows Vista Home Premium, $239/$159 * Windows Vista Business, $299/$199 * Windows Vista Ultimate, $399/$259
* MacOS X Tiger (single user) $129 * MacOS X Tiger (family license) $199 * MacOS X Server $999
I suspect that Windows Vista Ultimate is not the server edition, which will almost certainly be more expensive than $399. So... assuming comparable hardware prices for Apple x86 PCs vs. the generic market, Microsoft has now priced themselves above the competition. I seem to remember Microsoft taking the market by _undercutting_ their competitors some decades ago. It would appear they have forgotten what competition does to the market leader. Perhaps it's time they relearn that lesson?
Presumably, a DRM module to read and decrypt specific filetypes (like, say Windows Media, Quicktime, whathaveyou) would decrypt based on the combination of a hardcoded, unique, and private key on the motherboard combined with the vendor's public key. You pay some money to the vendor, the drm module contacts the vendor, the two use your private MB key and the public key to arrange an encrypted session to exchange another private key that is bound to your MB key and the vendor's file. Now the only way you can decrypt the file is with your motherboard running the DRM module (and the key).
The OS does the same thing when it demands signed drivers before execution. Which means, the hardware only handles providing a unique identifier and key to the DRM module and the OS then determines based upon decryption whether to run the code or not. So, if you don't want to be limited to signed drivers, simply code the OS so it doesn't check. Microsoft won't do this, but there's nothing preventing the Linux and BSD crowd from doing so.
Now, if motherboard/cpu makers implement a DRM scheme in the BIOS/bootloader, then things get tricky. It's at that point where I throw my hands up in the air and take a sledgehammer to the PC.
It's already in the hardware, anyway. x86 has been shipping with unique identifier serial numbers for years. Trusted computing hardware is already in the drives and hdmi will soon be standard on video cards. The issue is not whether DRM hardware is included but can the owner turn it off? IOW: if I don't plan to run commercial code, why should I care? I might not be able to view proprietary data files. So what? Or are you suggesting that simply including hardware TC support will prevent one from booting linux? Because, if so, that would appear not to be the case.
There's absolutely no need to 'compromise' on including proprietary binary kernel modules to perform DRM. If the media companies want Linux users to be able to read their chosen formats, they can release the source GPL'd and Linus will include it in the tree, or not, based on his own quirky ideas of code cleanliness. Linus has made it clear he'll accept DRM support code. So, there is no issue here as far as "compromising" with the media companies.
Before anyone bitches about refusing to release the code for security reasons, I'll simply state: "security through obscurity is neither" blah blah blah.
On my bullshit soapbox, here's what I say: open source DRM is fine by me as long as it's limited to restricting specific media filetypes. In the end, \*I\* must control \*my\* computer. Which means that I still get to boot Linux, remove or never install the DRM module at will, and continue using and running free software and media without content restrictions.
IOW: My computer Sony! How about I not download and buy your music/films and you keep your filthy hands off my computer? Deal?
That's interesting. It is currently DOE mandated that all drives affiliated with DOE funded projects be physically destroyed after use. I'm curious to know how someone could take bits of shattered platter and extract useful data.
Agreed completely. I've tested several XP based PC tablets. There are some with good portrait viewing angles, such as the electrovaya scribbler 3100, and most recent models use an active wacom digitizer for pen input... the problem is not the hardware, it's the software. I have sitting next to me a ten year old Newton MP2100. Pen input on the device is fine. With a 1GB cf card the thing has oodles of space for plain text documents, and it supports excellent inline annotation. The damn thing runs a 160mhz arm processor with 4MB of RAM. It's a fine enough calandear, I suppose... though I don't care. I only care about carrying around lots of ebooks and classwork.
The Newton may be a pile of ten year old junk hardware, but the software is *still* more useful for this kind of work than XP tablet edition! WTF!?!?!?
Slashdot Mirror
Can you not see the utter absurdity of these two statements:
"Your information IS FUD AND OLD."
vs.
- There are several new Blu-ray releases that have very good picture quality.
- is that lots of releases are coming in few months that have either VC-1 or AVC(Mpeg4)
- there are several movies coming that are 50 GB DL Blu-ray releases.
So... how can my information be "FUD AND OLD" when it is -- in fact -- current? When Sony and its industry partners release material with modern codecs and press dual layer discs, perhaps then you'll have a point. Until then, I would say you simply have a vested interest in promoting Blu-Ray. The funny thing is that if you look through my comment history, you'll see that I was particularly excited about Blu-Ray until I actually saw a demonstration comparing it to HD-DVD. Oh, I'm sorry, I'll just have to close my lying eyes - clearly, they're FUD eyes.
A single layer blu-ray disc has ~25GB of capacity, of which almost 15% is used for uncompressed audio. This avsforum thread on the Samsung BDP-1000 is particularly illuminating on the issue of space constraints due to the mix of single layer discs with mpeg2 as the codec. --M
"hey took WAY too long to get to market. If the players had been available somewhere around 2000 to 2003[...]"
Mass manufacturing the blue laser required by both systems wasn't available in '02-'03 time span. In fact, recent reports of a blue laser shortage may limit Blu-ray and HD-DVD manufacturing for the near future. Also, the adoption of HDTV back in '02 was very slim - who would have bought that high definition content? One could argue they're still too early to be pushing HD media sales... --M
"Both Blu-ray and HDVDVD support the same codecs Mpeg2, mpeg 4 (h.264) and VC1 (Windows Media). For some reason Blu-ray creation software didn't support the other codecs initially, but the player does."
That's correct. However, the end result is the same. Films released on Blu-Ray format in mpeg2 look noticably worse than films released in mpeg4 or VC1 on HD-DVD. I was shocked at the difference in image quality between the two. So, perhaps blu-ray players do support modern codecs (avsforum has had a good deal of discussion on this matter at their blu-ray forum) - but the upshot is that blu-ray releases look terrible compared to HD-DVD. And Blu-Ray drives cost twice as much.
What would *you* buy? (well, *I* would buy neither - and wait for the format war to finish).
HD-DVD looks much better than Blu-Ray right now, primarily because HD-DVD uses a modern mpeg4 codec, while Sony chose to support the older mpeg2 codec. This is a shame. Blu-Ray, due to its higher capacity and throughput looked to be the clear winner. Sony *cough!* blu *cough!* it. But, as much as the /. community would like to believe, I don't think onerous DRM restrictions are the cause of this market failure. Frankly, the units cost too much, they lack good content, and the format war causes too much confusion risk for consumers. Why spend $500-$1000 on something that will be worthless in a year or less? Sony thought they had the game wrapped up with PS3. Now both formats look to lose.
Perhaps Sony might learn a lesson from this?
Don't forget Asylum, which (regardless of what Wikipedia claims) was originally released on the TRS-80 in 1980 by Med Systems Software. Prior to Asylum, they released similar 3D maze games, Deathmaze 5000 and Labyrinth. The TRS-80 had a pixel resolution of 128x48, black & white. So... uh... no textures. And, oh yeah, why has everyone forgotten Battlezone?
WTF is this doing as the main article link?
s ?clickMap=viewThis&etMailToID=1094610967
http://www.emailthis.clickability.com/et/emailThi
lame...
Next: Why do kids in class have access to the Internet? I can see that it might be appropriate in a library, under supervision - but in class? Of course it would cause interruptions! What: are these kids expecting free wireless at school?
But this ignores the underlying question: is there reason for portable computing devices within the classroom? I think yes. The problem is not the computer, it is how teachers design curriculums with computing in mind. That is, they don't. Further, there's little software designed to help teach to a curriculum. Most teachers aren't programmers and wouldn't have time to develop good software even if they had programming skills. So, there's a large gap between what a computer could do to help teach students and how they are currently being used.
I would suggest that a laptop (or handheld) is best used for note taking. But with specialized software it could also help teach math, geography, foreign languages, etc. Providing etexts for coursework could be useful as well. But giving kids laptops with wireless internet? Whoa... bad idea.
Your argument twists the original.
/. community. It is up to you to determine if you find the data, methodology, and conclusions of merit.
I made no argument whatsoever. I posted links to two studies published in peer reviewed journals, each of which made an argument based on data their data collection and statistical methodology. I simply pointed to those studies and said: "hey, read this!" to the
The rest of your comment is pure opinion, backed by absolutely nothing in the way of published research. You are certainly welcome to that opinion. But, given what you have posted, call me less than impressed.
Finally: did you read those studies? Because, if you did then you didn't understand them. And if you didn't then you're simply a fool. And not because you disagree with their conclusions. --M
Exactly right, correlation is not causation. However, in many cases it is the best possible result given the kind of data that can be collected. In this case the author was dealing with availability of porn vs. law enforcement case reports of rape. We know exactly how many case reports were filed, but how does one quantify porn availability? Of course, the process used was described in the Methods section of both studies. But, it's squishy like social science (rather than the porn kind of squishy) Also, how does one randomize the available data?
Thus, any conclusions drawn from this study are weak. However, note that I also posted a second study by a different group down the thread which found a similar correlation. Again, things that make you go hmmm - but not necessarily aha! --M
Yes, to have a discussion you do have to spell your argument out for me. Otherwise, I have no idea what you really mean. And linking to the definition of strawman doesn't help. Further, may I point out that I didn't author either of these studies, nor was I involved in them in any way. I simply posted an interesting link.
Perhaps you might read them, and post back a decent rebuttal. Asshat.
Well then, have another study which looks at the increase in porn availability in Japan and contrasts that with the crime rate. Same conclusion.
Now, as to your assertion that these studies are "strawmen" arguments, would you please explain this assertion rather than just claiming it so? I don't see the strawman you allege. Next, how do you plan to gage an increase or decrease in promiscuity? Would that be by survey? If so, then good luck getting accurate data (you'll need it).
Well, if the study Porn Up, Rape Down is correct... then no. The author shows a strong correlation between increased access to pornography and a statistical reduction in reported rapes. Further, the author showed geographical correlations within the US whereby locally reduced access to pornography occurred in the same locations as areas with high rape rates.
Things that make you go Hmmmm....
Here's a point: ALL Mac OS X sales are upgrades because Mac OS X only runs on Macs which were already preloaded with OS X in the first place.
So how does your point refute mine? MacOS X is still cheaper to buy, whether upgrading from a bundled install with a Mac or purchasing outright to install on another Mac. Further, I can refute your point on bundling by simply pointing to the purchase of a used G3/G4 mac which came bundled with OS 9.
Yes, and most OEMs don't include installation disks with those OS bundles, but instead ship "reimaging" software to reinstall the system the OEM shipped state. Further, I doubt you will get a cheap copy of Vista/Premium, Vista/Business, or Vista/Ultimate bundled with your Dell PC. At least not at the OEM rate. You will pay the tiered price, even if it is cheaper than a boxed retail price. And - I argue - in either case it would have been cheaper just to buy a Mac.
That doesn't mean the Mac will do what you want. If you happen to need Windows for a specific application, by all means buy Windows. But you will be paying a premium to do so.
Well, that's an interesting point. Are they two separate product lines? They both run the same office software. They both claim some measure of compatibility going back to Windows 3.0 and Dos. But they are certainly separate code lines and are (were) differentiated products - much as the various Vista product lines are differentiated.
I would argue the long period between the XP and Vista releases are more akin to Apple's failed Copland release back in 1996. In both cases, progress with each codebase was hampered by backward compatibility requirements leading to an explosion in complexity. Apple gave up, while Microsoft kept slogging on (after throwing away a failed attempt back in '03).
However, even accepting your point that old Windows and WinNT are separate product lines, the history of their OS releases shows an average of ~2 years per release. This is well in line with Apple's release schedule.
Starting from the time Windows was actually usable:
* Windows 3.0: 1990
* Windows 3.1: 1992/3 (3.11 WFWW)
* Windows/NT 3.1: 1993
* Windows 95: 1995
* Windows NT 4.0: 1996
* Windows 98: 1998
* Windows/ME: 2000
* Windows 2000: 2000
* Windows/XP: 2003
* Windows Vista: (~2007)
-----
So, it would appear to me that the gap between releases is limited to the timespan between the release of XP and Vista, and not due to differing release policies between Apple and Microsoft.
MacOS X comes preloaded on any Mac, just like with Windows. However, Microsoft also segments OEM prices depending on their relationship with each vendor, so it's impossible to compare with bundled MacOS X from Apple. Apple doesn't segment "upgrades" from new installations as they charge full price for each new major release. Perhaps I should have then compared Microsoft's "upgrade" price to Apple's full price. Still, it wouldn't matter, as Apple's release is still significantly cheaper.
Also, may I point out that MacOS X arrives in a full DVD installation set, unlike OEM Windows installs. Having original install media rather than OEM re-imaging software certainly makes life easier for the user.
* Windows Vista Home Basic, $199/$99.95
* Windows Vista Home Premium, $239/$159
* Windows Vista Business, $299/$199
* Windows Vista Ultimate, $399/$259
* MacOS X Tiger (single user) $129
* MacOS X Tiger (family license) $199
* MacOS X Server $999
I suspect that Windows Vista Ultimate is not the server edition, which will almost certainly be more expensive than $399. So... assuming comparable hardware prices for Apple x86 PCs vs. the generic market, Microsoft has now priced themselves above the competition. I seem to remember Microsoft taking the market by _undercutting_ their competitors some decades ago. It would appear they have forgotten what competition does to the market leader. Perhaps it's time they relearn that lesson?
Presumably, a DRM module to read and decrypt specific filetypes (like, say Windows Media, Quicktime, whathaveyou) would decrypt based on the combination of a hardcoded, unique, and private key on the motherboard combined with the vendor's public key. You pay some money to the vendor, the drm module contacts the vendor, the two use your private MB key and the public key to arrange an encrypted session to exchange another private key that is bound to your MB key and the vendor's file. Now the only way you can decrypt the file is with your motherboard running the DRM module (and the key).
The OS does the same thing when it demands signed drivers before execution. Which means, the hardware only handles providing a unique identifier and key to the DRM module and the OS then determines based upon decryption whether to run the code or not. So, if you don't want to be limited to signed drivers, simply code the OS so it doesn't check. Microsoft won't do this, but there's nothing preventing the Linux and BSD crowd from doing so.
Now, if motherboard/cpu makers implement a DRM scheme in the BIOS/bootloader, then things get tricky. It's at that point where I throw my hands up in the air and take a sledgehammer to the PC.
It's already in the hardware, anyway. x86 has been shipping with unique identifier serial numbers for years. Trusted computing hardware is already in the drives and hdmi will soon be standard on video cards. The issue is not whether DRM hardware is included but can the owner turn it off? IOW: if I don't plan to run commercial code, why should I care? I might not be able to view proprietary data files. So what? Or are you suggesting that simply including hardware TC support will prevent one from booting linux? Because, if so, that would appear not to be the case.
There's absolutely no need to 'compromise' on including proprietary binary kernel modules to perform DRM. If the media companies want Linux users to be able to read their chosen formats, they can release the source GPL'd and Linus will include it in the tree, or not, based on his own quirky ideas of code cleanliness. Linus has made it clear he'll accept DRM support code. So, there is no issue here as far as "compromising" with the media companies.
Before anyone bitches about refusing to release the code for security reasons, I'll simply state: "security through obscurity is neither" blah blah blah.
On my bullshit soapbox, here's what I say: open source DRM is fine by me as long as it's limited to restricting specific media filetypes. In the end, \*I\* must control \*my\* computer. Which means that I still get to boot Linux, remove or never install the DRM module at will, and continue using and running free software and media without content restrictions.
IOW: My computer Sony! How about I not download and buy your music/films and you keep your filthy hands off my computer? Deal?
That's interesting. It is currently DOE mandated that all drives affiliated with DOE funded projects be physically destroyed after use. I'm curious to know how someone could take bits of shattered platter and extract useful data.
Where I work we wipe hard disks with a drill press or a sledgehammer. Seriously.
They wouldn't taste as good either.
*smacks forehead*
I spent my entire childhood eating 'mystery meat' from the school cafeteria... Oh fuck!
Agreed completely. I've tested several XP based PC tablets. There are some with good portrait viewing angles, such as the electrovaya scribbler 3100, and most recent models use an active wacom digitizer for pen input... the problem is not the hardware, it's the software. I have sitting next to me a ten year old Newton MP2100. Pen input on the device is fine. With a 1GB cf card the thing has oodles of space for plain text documents, and it supports excellent inline annotation. The damn thing runs a 160mhz arm processor with 4MB of RAM. It's a fine enough calandear, I suppose... though I don't care. I only care about carrying around lots of ebooks and classwork.
The Newton may be a pile of ten year old junk hardware, but the software is *still* more useful for this kind of work than XP tablet edition! WTF!?!?!?