The FFC requires that any cable operator with over a certain amount of bandwidth on their network give out CableCARDs at the customer's request. As far as I know, the deadline for compliance was July 1st. I could be wrong on the specifics, but I do know the deadline has come and gone, so a majority of cable companies should comply by now. My cable company does.
What is really needed in this space is a decoder card that also has a CableCARD slot. I don't care whether the CableCARD is inside the case or has an external slot, it doesn't really matter to me.
The fact of the matter is that most QAM signals on digital cable are scrambled. Previously, you had to have a set-top box with descrambling chips in it to watch the TV. With cable card, however, these crypto chips are sparated out so the cable company can had you a CableCARD, and you can buy whatever set-top box you want.
So, even if you get this card, you aren't going to be able to watch many digital cable channels with it since they will all be encrypted (at least here in the US). Now, when they release a version with CableCARD, I'll jump all over it (and begin the search/code for Linux drivers).
I totally agree with you. I've been looking into getting satellite radio (XM or Sirius, leaning toward Sirius), but the form factor of the radio's is what is holding me back. The portable units all have odd sort of shapes that don't lend well to being out of the way in a car and require even odder shaped "boomboxes" for home use.
Any company that does this will get my money:
Make a satellite radio unit that has a form factor similar to an iPod with a pin-compatible dock connector. Then, make a car head unit that an iPod or this new sat radio device can slide into like a tape deck. Preferrably, it would have a fold down screen that would then close up over the unit to present a more car-suitable interface. This way I can swap between sat radio and iPod at will. (Bonus points if you have two docks so both can be inside at the same time and be user selectable without physical removal).
I don't require much for home use of the sat radio device. Just let me pop it in my iPod dock connector connected to my stero and have it pump out tunes.
To truly be an open standard, all of above need to be addressed.
An open standard doesn't mean a standard with a lot of features, it means one that an industry collaboratively agrees on and adopts. Many open standards with smaller scope could combine to give all the benefits of XNA. Indeed, OpenGL is for graphics, OpenML is for media authoring and storage, etc.
XNA, just because it has a bunch of stuff in it, is not an open standard. Microsoft is solely responsible for its development.
Glad you find my comment interesting. I wanted to address some points you made.
Why gerry-rig someone else's program to fit your needs when you can write your own from scratch?
I think the issue at hand is that computer-wide searches will be much more relevant the more closely they can be tied to the OS. For example, updating the index when a file changes would be easiest if you can get notifications from the base level. As such, Google doesn't have a consumer OS, only Microsoft and Apple do. I'm disregarding Linux for now as I don't find it "consumer ready," but I do run it along with Mac OS X myself.
That being the case, Google can choose to write its own desktop search, without direct access to an OS, or it can choose to partner. An Apple partnership makes more sense to me than a Microsoft one. Sure, Apple has done a lot of work in this area, but the point of the partnership is to bring two companies together. Google, I'm sure, could come up with some killer ideas for Spotlight, and Spotlight could have a "Powered by Google" logo slapped on it. Its a win for both Google and Apple. In addition, searches done locally could be linked to Google with a simple button click (I'm thinking the arrow iTunes uses to go to artist and album pages on the store).
The page rank doesn't translate directly to most local documents, but that leaves room for innovation. Based on personal habits, I usually have related documents open at the same time. Keeping statistics of what documents are open at the same time, and cross-referencing that info, could lead to a pseudo-PageRank sort of indexing scheme. That's just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.
This is very true. Google recently bought Picasa which makes a Windows-based photo organizer. The Windows desktop application space is one where Google could sink a lot of money they can't recover simply because it would be too hard to compete with Microsoft on Microsoft's OS.
Personally, I think Google and Apple should form a partnership to cross promote and integrate their products. iTunes and iPhoto are wonderful organizing and searching tools for personal media. Similarly, the upcoming Spotlight looks to be good for general computer-wide searches. Those things and Google make life much more simple. A partnership would link those technologies with Google and Google could promote them to their users.
It also seems like the two companies philosophies are one in the same. Each strives for minimalist and simple to use interfaces. In addition, it would be much harder for Apple to directly target Google as they don't have the same resources MS does.
Does anyone know of any more "open" service similar to TerraServer. I beleive that TerraServer is the premiere source of satellite imagery, and it really bothers me that Microsoft has such a lead in this area. If not, it would be a wonderful thing for Google to start providing, as there is a *ton* of money to be made from localized searches.
There are tons of really cool application to be built using GPS along with a massive database of terrain images. For example, I was just reading an article about an experiment where someone went on vacation and took a bunch of pictures. The whole time, this person had a GPS unit tracking his movements. In the end, he compared timestamps from the GPS data to timestamps on the photographs, and built a map with pinpoints showing where each picture was taken.
Anyway, I think there are huge opportunities for innovation this sort of thing in the future. It'd be nice if there was an easy way for developers to get access to it.
Well, why would you? Have you tried searching the US store for the same tracks?
Did you read my comment? I stated that the foreign stores have tracks not found on the US stores. This includes tracks by some bands whose music I really enjoy.
Yes, I know its otherwise cheaper at the US store, but the US store doesn't carry all the same songs.
I decided to try this myself, you can't buy from the foreign stores. It gives you a message stating that your account is only authorized for purchase in the US.
So, in case anyone else was wondering, there is your answer.
I'm in the US and at the bottom of the iTMS home pages, I can select which country's store I want to see (USA, UK, France, Germany). When I select one, I'm taken to the store.
Can I, from the US, purchase songs from the foreign stores? I know I could try this myself, but I've been a bit leery. Anyone else tried this and have it work or otherwise? Each country store has some unique music not found on the others, and I'd like to buy some of those tracks.
Well, component inputs would be nice. I prefer a more integrated solution. With an onboard CableCARD, tuning and channel changing can be done without any external components.
The biggest problem I have with IR and serial controlled set-tops is the lack of any standard between them. IR is iffy at best, you might miss a number in the channel sequence. Serial is supported on only a minority of set-tops.
If you wanted a video input into a PC based HD card, I'd go with Firewire over component in. That way you get HD video and a control channel in one cable.
You are right on the money with your observation. Very little HDTV comes from the cable company in an unencrypted format, so these things are almost strictly OTA solutions.
What is really needed is a card you can stick in your computer that has a CableCARD slot, so it can be authorized to decrypt the digital cable channels. Anyone heard if something like this is in the works?
Yes, I haven't given Microsoft anything. However, they are making a product for which I am part of the intended audience. So, having me as a customer is worth something to them because I would purchase a system and games. It is a $0 vs. $n (n > 0) scenario. Microsoft would prefer I be part of the latter.
I never accused Microsoft of screwing me out of anything (on the Xbox front, at least). I simply said I am not likely to purchase an Xbox Next, if they can't demonstrate that my subsequent game investment will not become obsolete with the Xbox 3.
It was a transaction. You are not entitled to treat your purchases as gifts to the producers.
This, I think, is a poor attitude for an educated consumer. You have every right to demand the most for your money. In addition, a company should want you to continue buying things from them. As such, it is to the companies benefit to value your business even after the transaction. Too many people don't expect this, and it leads to far worse products as a result.
<ShamelessApplePlug> That is, incidentally, why I purchase Apple products versus Microsoft ones. One continues to value me after the purchase and provides higher quality products as a result. </ShamelessApplePlug>
You have correctly pointed out that history is on their side. However, the present is radically different that the past. Sony sucessfully proved that backwards compatibility can be done, and consumers welcomed it. This means that consumers will most likely expect it in the future. Sony changed the playing field, and it is Sony that Microsoft needs to contend with. They can't pull their usual shit over on the customers when better, market-leading alternatives exist.
The other factor, I believe is the disc based format. Speaking only of Nintendo (I'm not familiar with the others), they kept cartridge based consoles right up to the Gamecube. Those are seen more of as hardware rather than software, and people don't expect as stringent compatibility reqirements with those. However, discs are a different issue. Most mainstream discs (CDs, DVDs) are backwards compatible with newer players. CDs can be played in DVD players, for example. The new DVD standard (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD) groups all have hardware backwards compatibility on their priority lists.
As such, I think a lot of XBOX customers are going to be dissapointed with this move. I didn't own a PS1, but baught a PS2 because they did a quality job with backwards compatibility, leaning me to trust them. I don't own an XBOX, and am not likely to pick up an XBOX Next if they don't demonstrate any reason for my doing so. Sony, for instance, won't obsolete my game library investment, but Microsoft wants to do exactly that. Why should I give Microsoft my money then, if they won't value what I have given them?
First off, I think Firefox and Thunderbird are terrific applications. I also applaud your desire to want people to switch to them. However, you need to exercise patience when trying to win over non-technical minded friends, for the same reasons I outlined in my previous post.
I can't wait to switch my father over to using Firefox and Thunderbird. However, I'm patiently waiting until they hit 1.0 releases, knowing that what is out there now is not stable.
Again, I hope you continue to want to convert people over from IE. However, doing so too soon could be more of a disservice to those people and the cause.
Seriously, it's written all over the Firefox and Thunderbird pages that these are prerelease versions (in case the 0.* version numbers didn't clue you in). You shouldn't expect them to keep your data clean on upgrades.
Part of the development process is settling in on a format you want to use to store data in, and this format changes regularly in the approach to a 1.0 release. It would be far too much effort for them to support formats that they don't consider to be final. After 1.0 hits they will have to maintain compatiblity.
Long story short, if you are looking for something to handle your data well, use an already stable app. Then, if you want Mozilla apps, switch to them once they release 1.0.
I think slashdot just got trolled. An excerpt from his page as reasons for doing this:
-multiple processors to ensure that mp3 decode is not interrupted by other process activity,
-good internal storage capacity, including the ability to take advantage of software RAID for reliability,
-large memory for good caching of tunes being played,
-easily expandable to allow for future projects,
-excellent support for Solaris 10, so that I can test bug-fixes, etc. while on the road if necessary. This also means that there is wide application availability (Oracle, great Java tools, etc.)
Does anyone who knows anything about MP3s think you need large or multiple processors to handle the task? Do you need massive memory to cache the songs? No on both counts.
Plus, the pictures on the site look like he just set his Sun server in the back of his SUV and snapped a couple photographs. No details on the hookup to the sound system at all.
If any story ever showed the ineptitude of Slashdot editors, this would be it.
By contrast, Negroponte seems to be suggesting that you would (in effect) hand your letter to a stranger on the street, who would hand it off to another, who hands it off to another, etc., until it gets to where it's going, with no intervention by a centralized agency.
I think you are being somewhat shortsighted here. Any P2P system is more centralized than it seems on the surface once you look a bit deeper. The protocol level of these networks are highly centralized in that they are developed at a company or standards body. Any device wanting to be part of the network needs to conform to that protcol. Being that greater power is gained from a bigger network, it is to the device's benefit to conform to the popular protocol.
Emphasizing humans as carriers for this data is quite rediculous. Most of what you do already is out in the open right now for anyone to see it. Wireless and P2P will make this more prevalent, but hardly mean you have to put more trust in strangers. You are trusting the protocol running over the network. Again, trusting the standards bodies/companies to come up with a reliable protocol.
Taxing happens at the sale of the device level. Software is of very little use without a device to run on it. Taxing only works when something holds value, which software doesn't necessarily do on its own. That's a bit of a misleading statement but generally correct. Protocols can also have a license "tax" similar to the MPEG standard.
In short, you shouldn't fear this because it seems more open. Most rapid periods of progress occur when things become more open and free (democracy, railroads, telephone, Internet, etc.) Each invention that opens up information has a certain balance of centralization and openness that gives it credibility. P2P is certainly no different.
Slashdot Mirror
The FFC requires that any cable operator with over a certain amount of bandwidth on their network give out CableCARDs at the customer's request. As far as I know, the deadline for compliance was July 1st. I could be wrong on the specifics, but I do know the deadline has come and gone, so a majority of cable companies should comply by now. My cable company does.
What is really needed in this space is a decoder card that also has a CableCARD slot. I don't care whether the CableCARD is inside the case or has an external slot, it doesn't really matter to me.
The fact of the matter is that most QAM signals on digital cable are scrambled. Previously, you had to have a set-top box with descrambling chips in it to watch the TV. With cable card, however, these crypto chips are sparated out so the cable company can had you a CableCARD, and you can buy whatever set-top box you want.
So, even if you get this card, you aren't going to be able to watch many digital cable channels with it since they will all be encrypted (at least here in the US). Now, when they release a version with CableCARD, I'll jump all over it (and begin the search/code for Linux drivers).
I totally agree with you. I've been looking into getting satellite radio (XM or Sirius, leaning toward Sirius), but the form factor of the radio's is what is holding me back. The portable units all have odd sort of shapes that don't lend well to being out of the way in a car and require even odder shaped "boomboxes" for home use.
Any company that does this will get my money:
Make a satellite radio unit that has a form factor similar to an iPod with a pin-compatible dock connector. Then, make a car head unit that an iPod or this new sat radio device can slide into like a tape deck. Preferrably, it would have a fold down screen that would then close up over the unit to present a more car-suitable interface. This way I can swap between sat radio and iPod at will. (Bonus points if you have two docks so both can be inside at the same time and be user selectable without physical removal).
I don't require much for home use of the sat radio device. Just let me pop it in my iPod dock connector connected to my stero and have it pump out tunes.
I think what just occured there was a Freudian slip, and your subconcious was acknowledging that there is, in fact, no god.
To truly be an open standard, all of above need to be addressed.
An open standard doesn't mean a standard with a lot of features, it means one that an industry collaboratively agrees on and adopts. Many open standards with smaller scope could combine to give all the benefits of XNA. Indeed, OpenGL is for graphics, OpenML is for media authoring and storage, etc.
XNA, just because it has a bunch of stuff in it, is not an open standard. Microsoft is solely responsible for its development.
string google_link = BuildGoogleAddress(search_term);
string google_res = GetGoogleResults(google_link);
InsertIntoMSNResults(google_res);
InsertIntoMSNResults(google_link);
Glad you find my comment interesting. I wanted to address some points you made.
Why gerry-rig someone else's program to fit your needs when you can write your own from scratch?
I think the issue at hand is that computer-wide searches will be much more relevant the more closely they can be tied to the OS. For example, updating the index when a file changes would be easiest if you can get notifications from the base level. As such, Google doesn't have a consumer OS, only Microsoft and Apple do. I'm disregarding Linux for now as I don't find it "consumer ready," but I do run it along with Mac OS X myself.
That being the case, Google can choose to write its own desktop search, without direct access to an OS, or it can choose to partner. An Apple partnership makes more sense to me than a Microsoft one. Sure, Apple has done a lot of work in this area, but the point of the partnership is to bring two companies together. Google, I'm sure, could come up with some killer ideas for Spotlight, and Spotlight could have a "Powered by Google" logo slapped on it. Its a win for both Google and Apple. In addition, searches done locally could be linked to Google with a simple button click (I'm thinking the arrow iTunes uses to go to artist and album pages on the store).
The page rank doesn't translate directly to most local documents, but that leaves room for innovation. Based on personal habits, I usually have related documents open at the same time. Keeping statistics of what documents are open at the same time, and cross-referencing that info, could lead to a pseudo-PageRank sort of indexing scheme. That's just the tip of the iceberg, I'm sure.
This is very true. Google recently bought Picasa which makes a Windows-based photo organizer. The Windows desktop application space is one where Google could sink a lot of money they can't recover simply because it would be too hard to compete with Microsoft on Microsoft's OS.
Personally, I think Google and Apple should form a partnership to cross promote and integrate their products. iTunes and iPhoto are wonderful organizing and searching tools for personal media. Similarly, the upcoming Spotlight looks to be good for general computer-wide searches. Those things and Google make life much more simple. A partnership would link those technologies with Google and Google could promote them to their users.
It also seems like the two companies philosophies are one in the same. Each strives for minimalist and simple to use interfaces. In addition, it would be much harder for Apple to directly target Google as they don't have the same resources MS does.
Does the authors special edition version have perforated lickable pages?
No, but I recommend you check out your local post office.
Does anyone know of any more "open" service similar to TerraServer. I beleive that TerraServer is the premiere source of satellite imagery, and it really bothers me that Microsoft has such a lead in this area. If not, it would be a wonderful thing for Google to start providing, as there is a *ton* of money to be made from localized searches.
There are tons of really cool application to be built using GPS along with a massive database of terrain images. For example, I was just reading an article about an experiment where someone went on vacation and took a bunch of pictures. The whole time, this person had a GPS unit tracking his movements. In the end, he compared timestamps from the GPS data to timestamps on the photographs, and built a map with pinpoints showing where each picture was taken.
Anyway, I think there are huge opportunities for innovation this sort of thing in the future. It'd be nice if there was an easy way for developers to get access to it.
It's like if I started calling my garage Digital Equipment Corporation and started selling pet rocks, it doesn't have anything to do with a VAX.
;-)
Well, I'm using an Alpha processor as a paperweight, so you'd at least have a little brand recognition going into your venture
Why not just leave them blank?
I tried it myself after posting my original comment. It doesn't let you buy from foriegn stores. Thanks for the offer though.
Well, why would you? Have you tried searching the US store for the same tracks?
Did you read my comment? I stated that the foreign stores have tracks not found on the US stores. This includes tracks by some bands whose music I really enjoy.
Yes, I know its otherwise cheaper at the US store, but the US store doesn't carry all the same songs.
I decided to try this myself, you can't buy from the foreign stores. It gives you a message stating that your account is only authorized for purchase in the US.
So, in case anyone else was wondering, there is your answer.
Here's what I've been wondering:
I'm in the US and at the bottom of the iTMS home pages, I can select which country's store I want to see (USA, UK, France, Germany). When I select one, I'm taken to the store.
Can I, from the US, purchase songs from the foreign stores? I know I could try this myself, but I've been a bit leery. Anyone else tried this and have it work or otherwise? Each country store has some unique music not found on the others, and I'd like to buy some of those tracks.
Well, component inputs would be nice. I prefer a more integrated solution. With an onboard CableCARD, tuning and channel changing can be done without any external components.
The biggest problem I have with IR and serial controlled set-tops is the lack of any standard between them. IR is iffy at best, you might miss a number in the channel sequence. Serial is supported on only a minority of set-tops.
If you wanted a video input into a PC based HD card, I'd go with Firewire over component in. That way you get HD video and a control channel in one cable.
You are right on the money with your observation. Very little HDTV comes from the cable company in an unencrypted format, so these things are almost strictly OTA solutions.
What is really needed is a card you can stick in your computer that has a CableCARD slot, so it can be authorized to decrypt the digital cable channels. Anyone heard if something like this is in the works?
Yes, I haven't given Microsoft anything. However, they are making a product for which I am part of the intended audience. So, having me as a customer is worth something to them because I would purchase a system and games. It is a $0 vs. $n (n > 0) scenario. Microsoft would prefer I be part of the latter.
I never accused Microsoft of screwing me out of anything (on the Xbox front, at least). I simply said I am not likely to purchase an Xbox Next, if they can't demonstrate that my subsequent game investment will not become obsolete with the Xbox 3.
It was a transaction. You are not entitled to treat your purchases as gifts to the producers.
This, I think, is a poor attitude for an educated consumer. You have every right to demand the most for your money. In addition, a company should want you to continue buying things from them. As such, it is to the companies benefit to value your business even after the transaction. Too many people don't expect this, and it leads to far worse products as a result.
<ShamelessApplePlug> That is, incidentally, why I purchase Apple products versus Microsoft ones. One continues to value me after the purchase and provides higher quality products as a result. </ShamelessApplePlug>
You have correctly pointed out that history is on their side. However, the present is radically different that the past. Sony sucessfully proved that backwards compatibility can be done, and consumers welcomed it. This means that consumers will most likely expect it in the future. Sony changed the playing field, and it is Sony that Microsoft needs to contend with. They can't pull their usual shit over on the customers when better, market-leading alternatives exist.
The other factor, I believe is the disc based format. Speaking only of Nintendo (I'm not familiar with the others), they kept cartridge based consoles right up to the Gamecube. Those are seen more of as hardware rather than software, and people don't expect as stringent compatibility reqirements with those. However, discs are a different issue. Most mainstream discs (CDs, DVDs) are backwards compatible with newer players. CDs can be played in DVD players, for example. The new DVD standard (Blue-Ray or HD-DVD) groups all have hardware backwards compatibility on their priority lists.
As such, I think a lot of XBOX customers are going to be dissapointed with this move. I didn't own a PS1, but baught a PS2 because they did a quality job with backwards compatibility, leaning me to trust them. I don't own an XBOX, and am not likely to pick up an XBOX Next if they don't demonstrate any reason for my doing so. Sony, for instance, won't obsolete my game library investment, but Microsoft wants to do exactly that. Why should I give Microsoft my money then, if they won't value what I have given them?
First off, I think Firefox and Thunderbird are terrific applications. I also applaud your desire to want people to switch to them. However, you need to exercise patience when trying to win over non-technical minded friends, for the same reasons I outlined in my previous post.
I can't wait to switch my father over to using Firefox and Thunderbird. However, I'm patiently waiting until they hit 1.0 releases, knowing that what is out there now is not stable.
Again, I hope you continue to want to convert people over from IE. However, doing so too soon could be more of a disservice to those people and the cause.
Seriously, it's written all over the Firefox and Thunderbird pages that these are prerelease versions (in case the 0.* version numbers didn't clue you in). You shouldn't expect them to keep your data clean on upgrades.
Part of the development process is settling in on a format you want to use to store data in, and this format changes regularly in the approach to a 1.0 release. It would be far too much effort for them to support formats that they don't consider to be final. After 1.0 hits they will have to maintain compatiblity.
Long story short, if you are looking for something to handle your data well, use an already stable app. Then, if you want Mozilla apps, switch to them once they release 1.0.
It's your fault you lost data, not theirs.
The italics should have been closed after the last item preceded by a "dash" (-). In case you were wondering.
I think slashdot just got trolled. An excerpt from his page as reasons for doing this:
-multiple processors to ensure that mp3 decode is not interrupted by other process activity,
-good internal storage capacity, including the ability to take advantage of software RAID for reliability,
-large memory for good caching of tunes being played,
-easily expandable to allow for future projects,
-excellent support for Solaris 10, so that I can test bug-fixes, etc. while on the road if necessary. This also means that there is wide application availability (Oracle, great Java tools, etc.)
Does anyone who knows anything about MP3s think you need large or multiple processors to handle the task? Do you need massive memory to cache the songs? No on both counts.
Plus, the pictures on the site look like he just set his Sun server in the back of his SUV and snapped a couple photographs. No details on the hookup to the sound system at all.
If any story ever showed the ineptitude of Slashdot editors, this would be it.
By contrast, Negroponte seems to be suggesting that you would (in effect) hand your letter to a stranger on the street, who would hand it off to another, who hands it off to another, etc., until it gets to where it's going, with no intervention by a centralized agency.
I think you are being somewhat shortsighted here. Any P2P system is more centralized than it seems on the surface once you look a bit deeper. The protocol level of these networks are highly centralized in that they are developed at a company or standards body. Any device wanting to be part of the network needs to conform to that protcol. Being that greater power is gained from a bigger network, it is to the device's benefit to conform to the popular protocol.
Emphasizing humans as carriers for this data is quite rediculous. Most of what you do already is out in the open right now for anyone to see it. Wireless and P2P will make this more prevalent, but hardly mean you have to put more trust in strangers. You are trusting the protocol running over the network. Again, trusting the standards bodies/companies to come up with a reliable protocol.
Taxing happens at the sale of the device level. Software is of very little use without a device to run on it. Taxing only works when something holds value, which software doesn't necessarily do on its own. That's a bit of a misleading statement but generally correct. Protocols can also have a license "tax" similar to the MPEG standard.
In short, you shouldn't fear this because it seems more open. Most rapid periods of progress occur when things become more open and free (democracy, railroads, telephone, Internet, etc.) Each invention that opens up information has a certain balance of centralization and openness that gives it credibility. P2P is certainly no different.