I believe that the HDCP negotiation happens over a "slow" I2C serial data bus (DDC). You can program a cheap microcontroller to intercept that and perform the authentication. The microcontroller will get the session key, but encrypted data is still being sent over the HDMI path. Feed that into a $200 Black Magic Intensity HDMI capture device, get the key from the microcontroller, and decrypt the stream on the PC's CPU. Or heck, dispense with the microcontroller and us the PC itself to intercept the I2C bus. You just need an HDMI dongle that breaks out the DDC wires, plus a couple of cheap I2C interfaces.
To add to this, have both laptops running a VNC (or other remote desktop) server. If you notice the video connection is down, you can call and VNC in to the remote machine to answer the call. If you want to try out different software, you can easily install it at both ends using VNC.
Having a PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) camera can really make a video connection more practical. Unfortunately, I haven't found really good candidates here that both offer good quality and don't cost too much. The Logitech Orbit is okay, but it doesn't have zoom, which is really quite valuable. Having an HD camera can help make up for no zoom. But even NTSC video quality with a good optical zoom easily beats a crappy digital zoom. And then there's the question of the control software. But that's where VNC can solve the problem of control software that only runs on the local machine (where the camera is connected).
There's much more to understanding what people say than just understanding the literal meaning of what they said. If you really want to understand somebody, you must also understand all the connotations for the wording they chose, as well as know about different possible wordings and be able to guess why they didn't use those. You must also be able to pick up on intonation and be able to pick up on sarcasm, humor, and various other expressive emotions. It's often critical to know when someone is being serious and when they're kidding.
As others have pointed out, this isn't so great for productivity, since you must now change your gaze between screens all the time. However, as a tool to help you learn keyboard shortcuts, it's pretty nice.
The productivity tool that might be interesting is a keyboard where, when you hit a special key, converts all the keytops into a large touchpad of sorts for moving the cursor.
But really, what apps need most is just a truly well thought out keyboard interface. Most developers either rely too much on WIMP or the mere fact that some keyboard shortcut may exist, regardless of how difficult to use it may be. For example, using tab/shift-tab as the only way of moving around 100 different selections isn't practical.
Indeed, if the story is good enough, you don't need any picture at all.
But on the other side of the coin, I believe there's certainly a knee in the curve where once you achieve a "good enough" quality, any additional quality doesn't really matter, and the viewer won't even notice it, unless the story fails to engage him such that he's now just looking for "stuff that ain't right".
For example, when I was watching Star Wars II (Attack of the Clones) in a theater with digital projection, I was very much noticing the pixellation!
You're almost on the right track, but not quite. We need network "neutrality", where "neutrality" means there is no discrimination based solely upon *who* the traffic is coming from (or going to). In other words, an ISP can't "slow down" Yahoo's packets just because they're Yahoo's packets.
Now, this doesn't mean that they can't "slow down" *any* packets. They should still have a right to "slow down" Yahoo's packets based solely on the fact that a particular, unnamed source (which might happen to be Yahoo) is overwhelming their network, for instance.
A big part of the discussion is "what is meant by network neutrality?" Everyone I'm sure has their own ideas. This is something that needs to be *VERY* carefully crafted such that the end result allows for better service to everyone, now and in the future.
Of course, network transparency is a good idea too.
(I use "slow down" in quotes because I understand the term isn't quite applicable; perhaps "treat with lower preference" is more fitting.)
The main problem is that a simple up/down rating conveys too little information. There are various ways to address this.
One method involves tailoring the ratings according to what the reader likes to see. This is accomplished by having the user "follow" specific raters (diggers); in other words, only the ratings done by the raters being followed matter to a given reader. Deciding what raters to follow could be done manually or automatically (or both). One automatic method is fairly data intensive, but would work as follows: for any story you choose to rate up, the system could look at who else rated the story up and make them potential followees, assuming they keep popping up this way.
Another method of addressing the root problem is to simply have lots of different kinds of ratings, and then let users assemble their own formulas for what ratings they care about. Here the difficulty is in deciding how many and what kind of ratings to use, and how to update them to keep up with the times. Perhaps there could be a fixed set and a system for proposing new types of ratings that could be moderated.
With any solution, there is the issue that users will narrow their focus down to only stories that follow their own thinking. This is what people want, to some extent. But it may also help keep people narrow-minded. Perhaps there should be a side-column in any feed that offers random stories.
Along this line, you should inquire with your insurance company what options you have for lowering your rates based upon what *they think* is good protection. For instance, people may say alarm systems are useless, but they're still helpful if having one lowers your insurance rates, and thus lets you lower your deductible.
This may work simply because a lot of people follow the same methods, and, given enough participation, the method drives the market to the "expected" result.
Slashdot Mirror
Let me take a stab. Your message is: 00000000....
(You are meditating, and you hope to eventually achieve one-ness.)
I believe that the HDCP negotiation happens over a "slow" I2C serial data bus (DDC). You can program a cheap microcontroller to intercept that and perform the authentication. The microcontroller will get the session key, but encrypted data is still being sent over the HDMI path. Feed that into a $200 Black Magic Intensity HDMI capture device, get the key from the microcontroller, and decrypt the stream on the PC's CPU. Or heck, dispense with the microcontroller and us the PC itself to intercept the I2C bus. You just need an HDMI dongle that breaks out the DDC wires, plus a couple of cheap I2C interfaces.
The old-school NetFlix, I mean.
What if they jailbreak the devices and have them always show the airplane mode icon?
No Sharapova herself, but a fragment from the tennis ball of one of her serves that went high.
You mean "If you can turn the feature off, and not miss it, then it is a gimmick".
To add to this, have both laptops running a VNC (or other remote desktop) server. If you notice the video connection is down, you can call and VNC in to the remote machine to answer the call. If you want to try out different software, you can easily install it at both ends using VNC.
Having a PTZ (pan/tilt/zoom) camera can really make a video connection more practical. Unfortunately, I haven't found really good candidates here that both offer good quality and don't cost too much. The Logitech Orbit is okay, but it doesn't have zoom, which is really quite valuable. Having an HD camera can help make up for no zoom. But even NTSC video quality with a good optical zoom easily beats a crappy digital zoom. And then there's the question of the control software. But that's where VNC can solve the problem of control software that only runs on the local machine (where the camera is connected).
I have a feeling we won't be seeing this in consumer products any time soon.
The boob tube is dead! Long live the boob tube!
(Hmm, now that CRT's are obsolete, what will the boob tube of the future be called?)
There's much more to understanding what people say than just understanding the literal meaning of what they said. If you really want to understand somebody, you must also understand all the connotations for the wording they chose, as well as know about different possible wordings and be able to guess why they didn't use those. You must also be able to pick up on intonation and be able to pick up on sarcasm, humor, and various other expressive emotions. It's often critical to know when someone is being serious and when they're kidding.
Having good public transit options locally is a step that must precede any regional train connections. Any attempts to bypass this are bound to fail.
Just very definite ones, that is.
What I see described best is X10 controlled outlets. They map perfectly to his patent, down to the dynamic reconfigurability part.
As others have pointed out, this isn't so great for productivity, since you must now change your gaze between screens all the time. However, as a tool to help you learn keyboard shortcuts, it's pretty nice.
The productivity tool that might be interesting is a keyboard where, when you hit a special key, converts all the keytops into a large touchpad of sorts for moving the cursor.
But really, what apps need most is just a truly well thought out keyboard interface. Most developers either rely too much on WIMP or the mere fact that some keyboard shortcut may exist, regardless of how difficult to use it may be. For example, using tab/shift-tab as the only way of moving around 100 different selections isn't practical.
Exactly. The "center" is anywhere you want it to be, given the appropriate definition of "center".
Indeed, if the story is good enough, you don't need any picture at all.
But on the other side of the coin, I believe there's certainly a knee in the curve where once you achieve a "good enough" quality, any additional quality doesn't really matter, and the viewer won't even notice it, unless the story fails to engage him such that he's now just looking for "stuff that ain't right".
For example, when I was watching Star Wars II (Attack of the Clones) in a theater with digital projection, I was very much noticing the pixellation!
You're almost on the right track, but not quite. We need network "neutrality", where "neutrality" means there is no discrimination based solely upon *who* the traffic is coming from (or going to). In other words, an ISP can't "slow down" Yahoo's packets just because they're Yahoo's packets.
Now, this doesn't mean that they can't "slow down" *any* packets. They should still have a right to "slow down" Yahoo's packets based solely on the fact that a particular, unnamed source (which might happen to be Yahoo) is overwhelming their network, for instance.
A big part of the discussion is "what is meant by network neutrality?" Everyone I'm sure has their own ideas. This is something that needs to be *VERY* carefully crafted such that the end result allows for better service to everyone, now and in the future.
Of course, network transparency is a good idea too.
(I use "slow down" in quotes because I understand the term isn't quite applicable; perhaps "treat with lower preference" is more fitting.)
The main problem is that a simple up/down rating conveys too little information. There are various ways to address this.
One method involves tailoring the ratings according to what the reader likes to see. This is accomplished by having the user "follow" specific raters (diggers); in other words, only the ratings done by the raters being followed matter to a given reader. Deciding what raters to follow could be done manually or automatically (or both). One automatic method is fairly data intensive, but would work as follows: for any story you choose to rate up, the system could look at who else rated the story up and make them potential followees, assuming they keep popping up this way.
Another method of addressing the root problem is to simply have lots of different kinds of ratings, and then let users assemble their own formulas for what ratings they care about. Here the difficulty is in deciding how many and what kind of ratings to use, and how to update them to keep up with the times. Perhaps there could be a fixed set and a system for proposing new types of ratings that could be moderated.
With any solution, there is the issue that users will narrow their focus down to only stories that follow their own thinking. This is what people want, to some extent. But it may also help keep people narrow-minded. Perhaps there should be a side-column in any feed that offers random stories.
Along this line, you should inquire with your insurance company what options you have for lowering your rates based upon what *they think* is good protection. For instance, people may say alarm systems are useless, but they're still helpful if having one lowers your insurance rates, and thus lets you lower your deductible.
This may work simply because a lot of people follow the same methods, and, given enough participation, the method drives the market to the "expected" result.
Not the methods.
Dr. Stephen Maturin was simply ahead of his time!
( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Maturin )
All your questions, plus many that you didn't even want to ask, can be answered by watching YouTube.
Of course, having all the answers won't necessarily give you any enlightenment.
Instead of meat, what about bioengineering trees to grow into more house-like shapes?
At least, if the tree dies, you've still got a solid wood structure.
I mean, spotting the oil is nice, but burning it away with lasers would be way cooler.