I don't see how its credit fraud. I was unaware that MS extends a line of credit with every Passport account. If you were trying to say that giving them the wrong name while linking a credit card to the account to pay for services is fraud, again I don't see how. If a person does not have their own credit card, does that mean they cannot use someone elses legally? So who says that I have to give them my real name on the account? As long as the credit card is real and I am legitimately using it my account name can be Mr. First Last @ 123 Address Street (but yeah I'll probably have to look up a valid city/state/zip).
All this aside I'm really wondering how many people in the justice department are paying off their mortgages with MS bribe money.
Keeping them oriented? Last I heard the moon was pretty inert, other than expansion/contraction from heaing and cooling (which would be accounted for in engineering and probably have to be done for a satellite solution) what would take them out of alignment?
They think power lines are bad? I can just imagine the cancer cluster surrounding the receiving station.
As far as cooking the earth, I'm not suggesting that it would burn the whole planet, but think about the starving families we could feed by pointing it in the middle of the ocean and boiling up a whole bunch of seafood. Send a couple boats out there to skim the surface after its done, then just pack on ice with cocktail or tartar sauce.
At a high level, no there is no reason that it should be worse. In practice though computers are a noisey environment to begin with, this isn't to say you cannot get quality audio out of one just that its very easy to dirty analog signals.
I don't know the Audigy sound card line very well, in particular do they use a breakout box for the analog output? I know the audigy cards come with firewire (IEEE 1394) ports, combine that with a joystick port, mic input, and several analog outputs (for example 3 minijack or 6 RCA jacks) and you have a very crowded card. The reason I mention a breakout box is for the possibility that it may offer RCA connectors as opposed to minijacks which are considerably more noise prone. A breakout box does not necessarily remove the possibility of the computer dirtying the signal either, but provided that breakout boxes cable is nicely sheilded it may help.
Regarding the S/PDIF output, reread my comment, I suggested using the digital output if you integrate a computer into your hometheater.
Dolby Digital 5.1 is just that, digital 5.1 channel sound on the DVD, therefore unless the manufacturer did something very stupid whats on the disc should go out the digital output (S/PDFI in the case of most PC sound cards although a S/PDIF->Optical converter can be purchased or created cheaply/easily).
Unfortunately digital audio is nothing more than a bit of streams afaik. Lacking any proper protocol to identify sources the hub you speak of would have to be more like a AB switchbox which would be of limited usefulness without a wireless remote. Considering most new A/V receivers come with a gaggle of inputs that can be navigated via remote and the onscreen display I think you'd probably be better off with a new receiver with enough inputs.
Regarding voice commands: I'm not a big proponent of voice recognition for general control. In a home theater envritonment there would be too much chance for accidental triggering by dialog in a movie so it would require a activation button (similar to that used in the Mercedes in car voice recognition which works remarkably well). If you are going to hold onto a remote to activate the remote commands, why not just press the buttons. This isn't to say its a useless idea just that it would need some serious finessing to be really usable (maybe by differencnig the microphone input and the audio source currently being played?).
Bleh forget your old posts, embarassment is part of reflection of youth. Its googles reverse phone number search that irks me. They have an option to remove your number from their database, I just wish I could remove just the address portion.
I actually found some earlier posts regarding Oak/Java/FirstPerson today. They are not definitively the oldest but they are a bit older.
First mention that I found on OAK (Java) that I know is actually about Oak/Java Oak Bytecode. Apparently Oak, Webrunner, language, Gosling, Naughton, Sun, Bytecode are common words even when searched for together. I had found some older links that were possibly related to it but I couldn't confirm them and now I can't find them, they were circa 1992-1993.
Your pretty quick to just dismiss the value of a PC in a home theater system. Your points are valid but only because the better solutions are not obvious. I still firmly believe that you're better off purchasing a dedicated DVD player but the experience of using a computer on a TV can be greatly improved as follows:
1) Remotes
There are many options here and many of them are better than kludgy. I personally use a cheapy Packard Bell Fastmedia remote that can be purchase for between $9-15 online or at computer shows. It consists of a cheapy receiver and a remote. There are even better solutions out there especially for a geeks home theater. Some contain IR receivers and transmitters, allowing you to customize macros and control more than the computer and the components. The biggest problem with these solutions are not the remotes themselves but A/V equipments general lack of a singal standard for connecting multiple devices together to act as one devices (would be nice to power on the DVD player and automatically select the input, audio configuration and picture adjustments).
I personally use a program called Girder to control my win box. Another popular program for linux is Lirc.
2) Sound Quality
Newer sound cards have improved drastically in terms of SQ but you are correct, the minijack is less than ideal and computers in general add noise to the mix. For a better solution connect you computer to your A/V receiver using one of the digital audio inputs. This removes the possibility of the minijack or the computer itself adding noise to the analog signal (most newer A/V receivers have digital inputs that use an internal DAC). Mp3s may not be the ultimate in high fidelty, but for most pop music its good enough and having a huge library online for casual listening is worth the trade off.
3) Video Quality
This is as much a fault of the computer as it is the fault of the TV. Most TV-Out capable video cards have pretty crappy picture quality, in fact I've yet to see one that knocked my socks off. Dedicated VGA converters generally do a better job, but are expensive and probably still won't give a picture as good as a $200 DVD player. But for the lucky few who have HDTVs there is hope. Some HDTV's come standard with a VGA or RGB interface and this is the ideal solution for hooking up your computer to such a set. For me, my HDTV doesn't have a VGA connector so instead I have to use a VGA->Y/Pb/Pr (component) transcoder. Using one of these transcoders provides a signal cleaner than any VGA out I've ever seen plus it allows me to use HD resolutions.
I don't recommend using a computer as a primary source in a home theater, but having a PC in the mix can be quite useful. Being able to control an entire home theater, being able to play mp3s and being able to play mame on a large tv make pretty compelling reason to throw a CPU into the cabinet.
The AVSForum - HTPC (Home Theater PC) forum has many people who have a PC connected for various reasons.
I thought only guidos and the clinically obtuse would catch the Timmy T reference. Then again you might be either or both.
(were the hell is that damn TKA album)
Re:I must be missing something
on
Review: SliMP3
·
· Score: 1
While I think its pretty nifty, I haven't used, heard or even read a objective review of SliMP3, but I do question the quality of the audio. I am sure that it is fine for casual listening but if your serious about playing mp3s through a quality audio system I would think that there are better ways to go about it.
My first question before I would purchase one of these for use with a quality audio system would be: how good does it sound? MP3s by nature are a compromise of fidelity for the sake of storage space. Add to it distortion or noise and I think it could possibly make for a dissapointing experience.
If you want to make the most in terms of sound quality from a mp3 I would recommend using a computer and a sound card with digital output. The first obvious benefit is that the source is digital meaning it will sound as good as the DAC in your receiver. Secondly analog audio over a composite cable is more noise prone. This brings up the third point of how well is the SliMP3 sheilded? My guess is that you could probably set up a computer in a good case with the previously mentioned sound card on a different electrical circuit a fair distance away from the audio rack with only the digital cable connecting the two systems.
This really is a moral dilemma. My first reaction was that google should not allow removal of messages. Then I decided to check the archive for my old posts and wow, I'm really torn.
As I write this I sit in front of my computer cowering. Any minute now someone I work with and/or respect is bound to call me or IM me a link to some of my earliest posts.
In all seriousness one of the posts did contain my old telephone number from a small business I ran. Instead of allowing removal, google should allow certain information to be edited out for the sake of security or privacy.
I was involved in the use of JXTA immediately after its launch in April of 2001. I led a team of experienced Java developers who used JXTA to produce a Groove-like product that ran on Linux, Windows, and Sun. Here were our findings:
1. JXTA was written by a bunch of inexperienced Java developers. They broke all the rules of Java programming and wrote spagetti code. I think they discovered Design Patterns in the middle of their project and overused and abused them, yielding worse code.
You seem to miss the essence of what JXTA is. From the outset JXTA has been a project to develop a set of protocols for managing P2P interaction. To confuse JXTA with its implementation is both inaccurate and unfair. If you were expecting a turn key solution for the initial release I think you need to stop and really think about how you set expectations. P2P was and still is a moving target and the initial release of JXTA blatantly shows this. Trying to be all things to all people is not easy as linux has proven. I am quite confident when I say, had JXTA's only purpose been to create a cool file sharing app, thats what would have been delivered. Instead JXTA aimed to create a frame work for P2P protocols, this goes beyond just sending a copy of some song (that should be downloadable from the publisher for a reasonable price).
That said the initial release of the Java implementation of the JXTA protocols was pretty ugly. I can't say I can think of another open source project who's code didn't need a lot of rewriting after the first release. The source code has been cleaned up considerably and the great part about the Java implementation being open source is that you could have helped clean it up.
2. They wrote demonstrations that used the pipe and filter architecture pattern to construct a unix shell essentially. One could list the peers on the network, pipe it through more, and wow your boss. But wait, it doesn't stop there - they created a chat program -- oooh.. IRC, IM anyone? When the time came to implement a real application, it was near impossible
Yes JXTA was/is a R&D project, and yes the first application was a shell utility targeted at developers to get them accustomed to the concepts behind the protocols.
As far as implementation of new applications, you're very right. Early on the Java implementation API was cryptic and unfriendly. One of the most frustrating limitations of the Java implementation was the requirement on the part of the application to poll for events. While it is still not perfect this has been addressed in newer versions along with many other API problems. API naming changes and the addition of listener interfaces for events are just a couple of the changes.
3. The firewall/double firewall tunneling didn't work, so LAN deployment only folks!
Now your showing how early you gave up on the project. The limitations on connection were much improved rather early and today work quite well.
4. The RVs, where peers gather and discover one another, were designed to only handle 10 socket connections, 4 of which were persistent. Nice and scalable! No failover support for the 1st release, BTW:)
Where in P2P land does it say that all connections must be connected all the time? Having the 4 most used connections remain open with a pool of 6 connections available for transient communication seems like a reasonable starting point and IIRC thats why the 10 sockets were split as 4 and 6. I am honestly not sure how the connection pooling is implemented today but this sounds better than Gnutella where you have a fixed number of connections to a fixed number of peers regardless of how active they are.
5. There were a lot of holes in the specification and thus ports to other languages will yield them potentially incompatible above the basic network protocol(which is XML, BTW, and thus slow as binary exchange of files need to be BASE64 encoded)
Wow, a early release of an ambitious project with holes in the specification. Its a collection of protocols, and last I checked newer protocols contain versioning information because nobody expects them to be 100% out of the gate. Maybe if you stuck around long enough to offer some input (it is an opensource project after all) the protocols would be more to your liking and a little more cohesive.
6. The entire JXTA project is tagged as a research and development project only. This means that unlike Jini, which obtained a large marketing and development budget, Sun is throwing a lot of cheap developers and little marketing to this project.
It is a R&D project because the target is not fully defined. There are many uses for P2P type interaction beyond mp3 file sharing, some of which have yet to become apparent. If all the potential uses for P2P style interaction were known, JXTA or something else would already own the scene. Instead you criticize a project that is open not only in source but open in definition.
In the end, it didn't deliver what it promised, it wasn't built for production use (Jini at least was, to some degree thank you Mr. Joy), and missed a lot of concepts necessary for effective peer networking.
Jini also had a longer development period for a fixed set of goals before it was released. Had Sun waited till JXTA was more robust and better defined before opening the protocols and the java implementation source code to the public, you'd probably be here bitching that XYZ feature was unsupported. Instead the project was opened rather early so that it could evolve as the developers using it needed it.
Where are they now? Not sure.. We quit looking at their code around July and concentrated on other network alternatives - settling on Jabber.
Last I checked they were still trying to build the holy grail of P2P interaction. don't want to call you a liar, but after responding to your 3rd point I can say that you stopped looking before July.
What a disappointment!
I agree 100%, posting today using arguments based on facts from months ago is kind of dissapointing. By your logic linux sucks since it doesn't support XYZ video card. Next time maybe you could supply accurate time frames so people can judge for themselves, then again I guess thats asking a bit much from an Anonymous Coward.
I have been off and on with JXTA for quite some time now and not all your points have been totally off base. But JXTA tries to be many things and has come a long way in a rather short time. The great part about Open Source is that contributing talks and bullshit walks.
The Z80, in its day, was a complicated chip. Now allotting that much board space for 'only' that much functionality seems like a waste. As a result, the Z80 has being sold more and more as IP to be embedded in a larger chip than as a whole chip itself. Here are [vautomation.com] some [synopsys.com] cores [evatronix.pl].
Was this their business model? Resell an existing technology until they could no longer sustain themselves?
Their existing IP even if ancient is very valuable but were they working on any new technology? Last I heard the royalties on the wheel were pretty slim.
Why was this modded down, even if its not true (which I believe it is), I have had several installers tell me that they will not install on a manual vehicle. Its the first thing that comes out of their mouth when you ask for a remote starter - "Is the car a manual?".
That said these new fancy gearboxes are manuals in the sense that they have a clutch, but they operate like an automatics except with lightning quick shifts (0.2 seconds). When the vehicle is started the gearbox is automatically put into neutral before engaging the starter. This is a requirement since they do not have an actual shift lever in the car (everything is done automatically or via paddles/buttons on the steering wheel).
For Christmas this year I was really hoping for yet another video codec to bring my live video to a cell phone that I don't have and couldn't use if I did.
There are hyrdolically actuated gearboxes being manufactured for consumer vehicles. Technology has moved from F1 racing into Ferraris and now BMW is offering a hydrolically operated 6spd gearbox with a clutch and all in the european spec M3 (possible the M3 GTR or something like that).
There are tradeoffs in everything. If you want the remote start ability you give up some of the security.
As far as leaving an entire key in place I guess that depends on the car and the kit your using. My Acura has one of the mentioned keys and when I looked into a remote start for it, I was told I needed to buy a spare key which would be disassembled to get just the coded portion out. I decided it wasn't for me.
But the point about cars being less hackable is valid. For years manufacturers have been making it harder to replace stock radios, and if you want to retain steering wheel controls your going to need lots of electrical tape and redbull.
I think Mercedes Benz has taken this to an entirely new level. New MB vehicles are incredibly difficult to steal thanks to their code hopping IR keys, so much so that the theft portion of insurance rates on them are down right cheap (which is good). But forget putting a remote starter in your brand new benz. Last time I tried counting there are 97 buttons within reach of the driver in the S class (I counted knobs as one switch even if they had more than one selectable position). All of this runs through a central computer in the car so basically if you want a different stereo system you better know german and feel like dumpster diving at MB headquarters.
Mercedes has a integrated cell phone system that comes with voice recognition. It uses a standard motorola timeport phone, identical in every sense except the firmware. Yet if I plug in my old timeport the car refuses to recognize it. Mercedes apparently thinks that the $87K you spend on the car with the phone isn't enough, they want the extra $450 for every phone you want to use in the car.
I'm currently trying to figure out how to get a copy of the firmware off the timeport that comes with the benz system so that I can put it on my original timeport.
This is quite sad, among manufacturers there is zero incentive or requirement to play nicely. I understand that they want to protect profit margins but its damn near predatory. There was an article on wired about some company offering a in car voice recognition system that works with bluetooth enabled cell phones. Great idea, too bad bluetooth is a technological unicorn and car manufacturers are bound to shut these guys out of the business.
Do Home Security firms get in trouble when their devices tip a criminal to police presence on their property? I doubt it. How would this be different?
Yes, but no. If the security firm notified the suspect that they were being surveilled by authorities they may be interfering with a criminal investigation. However, if I was running a large crime empire and I hired someone to find out if I was under surveillance and they found out that I was, I would not let those surveilling me know I was aware of them. Knowing if and how you're under surveillance would be a great benefit, allowing you to lay down a false scent and better hide your activities. So the first order of business would be to hide the knowledge.
Furthermore if such a company finds something but they are not sure what it is, they can rightfully tell the client that "SOMEONE" is listening. I think they would have a major problem only if they knowingly interfered with a police investigation.
I know several linesmen working for Verizon in the NYC area and they described how a wiretap is generaly obfuscated (by setting up weird routes for the lines, etc) and they all get to hear the same story when they first start. The story goes that a linesmen found a wiretap on some big shots line while troubleshooting, figuring he would collect a "finders fee" and maybe be owed a little favor he decided to inform the customer. Only problem is that he wasn't too bright and decided to call the customer on the line that was tapped, thus letting the FBI and whoever else listening know that he was blowing the whistle. He supposedly was prosecuted and relieved of his job.
One question comes to my mind, is the FBI stupid enough to try and use magic lantern on savvy people?
The Nicky Scarfo case seems to be the precedent for computer surveillance so far. Savy enough to use a computer, but I doubt he was any kind of virus hunting guru.
Would the FBI be willing to risk exposing the signature of magic lantern to the general public by using it on users more likely to know how to find it?
If the virus companies roll over and let the FBI sqeak by easily, they effectively help the FBI keep the honest people honest while people with enough incentive go about there wrong doings march on. As a bonus they leave a wide backdoor open in the protection that honest people rely on to protect their data from wrong-doers.
This idea is so great I bet that the brain surgeon behind it has at least 2-3 previous dot-bombs under their belt.
The XBox is a console in the sense that it has hardware stability; you know exactly what you're coding for, and a PC in simplicity. I'ld expect it to be a great hit in the game-programming industry...
This makes sense in theory but how well does that hold up? From what I've seen Sony seems to redesign the PS2 every 3 weeks. They have done some major revisions to the motherboards I'd guess for the sake of cost and possibly in an attempt to defeat mod chips (unsuccessful on the later part).
From what I've seen there have been minimal problems with such revisions in other consoles to this point but will it remain that way?
If I was cynical I'd say MS might have just left the box very hackable. Just think about it, they have cash to burn, wouldn't mind losing money if it pushed another 900lb gorilla (Sony) out of the market and put their system under everyones TV's. Then again I still think that Sega leaked the way to hack the DreamCast as a last ditch attempt to try and boost console sales (people do weird things when ships sink).
(I don't think they intentionally left it hackable though, the game market is lucrative as it is.)
Interestingly enough I haven't heard anything about the copyprotection behind the Xbox. Anyone have any information regarding the schemes used?
This seems like a really bad move for a company that has been skating the edge with the opensource community over their latest OS.
IIRC part of the motivation behind PNG was that Compuserve owns the patent on the GIF format and was beginning to flex it. GIF support was removed from the GD library for this very reason.
If they have some other motivation for trying to enforce this patent and win, lets hope they create some sort of license to allow the opensource community to continue to use it. Otherwise they will sour more people than they already have.
I have never had a problem with items delivered by air using FedEx but about 3 weeks ago I received 3, yes count them 3 replacement monitors shipped to me via FedEx ground before the fourth one arrived intact.
The first one was missing 1/3 of the box by the time it got here I refused shipment and didn't even look inside. The second one had its top left corner smashed in. The third one had the base and bottom of the housing cracked the same as the one in the story.
I moved most of my stuff cross country via UPS without a single piece being damaged (but I did insure it). Moral of the story is I've had better luck with UPS, but FedEx Ground seems to have a serious problems.
Your point about the CPU overhead is spot on. IDE does have extra system overhead and thats fact.
But there is a solution, IDE RAID5 controllers. They have extra hardware on the controller that offloads the IDE overhead from the system. They actually appear as SCSI arrays to the system.
Unfortunately the last I checked, these controlelrs didn't live up to the promise of performance that they are theoretically capable of and they were quite pricey (~$300+).
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how its credit fraud. I was unaware that MS extends a line of credit with every Passport account. If you were trying to say that giving them the wrong name while linking a credit card to the account to pay for services is fraud, again I don't see how. If a person does not have their own credit card, does that mean they cannot use someone elses legally? So who says that I have to give them my real name on the account? As long as the credit card is real and I am legitimately using it my account name can be Mr. First Last @ 123 Address Street (but yeah I'll probably have to look up a valid city/state/zip).
All this aside I'm really wondering how many people in the justice department are paying off their mortgages with MS bribe money.
Keeping them oriented? Last I heard the moon was pretty inert, other than expansion/contraction from heaing and cooling (which would be accounted for in engineering and probably have to be done for a satellite solution) what would take them out of alignment?
They think power lines are bad? I can just imagine the cancer cluster surrounding the receiving station.
As far as cooking the earth, I'm not suggesting that it would burn the whole planet, but think about the starving families we could feed by pointing it in the middle of the ocean and boiling up a whole bunch of seafood. Send a couple boats out there to skim the surface after its done, then just pack on ice with cocktail or tartar sauce.
At a high level, no there is no reason that it should be worse. In practice though computers are a noisey environment to begin with, this isn't to say you cannot get quality audio out of one just that its very easy to dirty analog signals.
I don't know the Audigy sound card line very well, in particular do they use a breakout box for the analog output? I know the audigy cards come with firewire (IEEE 1394) ports, combine that with a joystick port, mic input, and several analog outputs (for example 3 minijack or 6 RCA jacks) and you have a very crowded card. The reason I mention a breakout box is for the possibility that it may offer RCA connectors as opposed to minijacks which are considerably more noise prone. A breakout box does not necessarily remove the possibility of the computer dirtying the signal either, but provided that breakout boxes cable is nicely sheilded it may help.
Regarding the S/PDIF output, reread my comment, I suggested using the digital output if you integrate a computer into your hometheater.
Dolby Digital 5.1 is just that, digital 5.1 channel sound on the DVD, therefore unless the manufacturer did something very stupid whats on the disc should go out the digital output (S/PDFI in the case of most PC sound cards although a S/PDIF->Optical converter can be purchased or created cheaply/easily).
Unfortunately digital audio is nothing more than a bit of streams afaik. Lacking any proper protocol to identify sources the hub you speak of would have to be more like a AB switchbox which would be of limited usefulness without a wireless remote. Considering most new A/V receivers come with a gaggle of inputs that can be navigated via remote and the onscreen display I think you'd probably be better off with a new receiver with enough inputs.
Regarding voice commands: I'm not a big proponent of voice recognition for general control. In a home theater envritonment there would be too much chance for accidental triggering by dialog in a movie so it would require a activation button (similar to that used in the Mercedes in car voice recognition which works remarkably well). If you are going to hold onto a remote to activate the remote commands, why not just press the buttons. This isn't to say its a useless idea just that it would need some serious finessing to be really usable (maybe by differencnig the microphone input and the audio source currently being played?).
Bleh forget your old posts, embarassment is part of reflection of youth. Its googles reverse phone number search that irks me. They have an option to remove your number from their database, I just wish I could remove just the address portion.
I actually found some earlier posts regarding Oak/Java/FirstPerson today. They are not definitively the oldest but they are a bit older.
First mention that I found on OAK (Java) that I know is actually about Oak/Java Oak Bytecode. Apparently Oak, Webrunner, language, Gosling, Naughton, Sun, Bytecode are common words even when searched for together. I had found some older links that were possibly related to it but I couldn't confirm them and now I can't find them, they were circa 1992-1993.
Oldest post by CVSVAX.wjn (aka Bill Joy) that I could find
First mention of Sun Microsystems (and coincidentally Bill Joy) Bill Joy's Plans
Your pretty quick to just dismiss the value of a PC in a home theater system. Your points are valid but only because the better solutions are not obvious. I still firmly believe that you're better off purchasing a dedicated DVD player but the experience of using a computer on a TV can be greatly improved as follows:
1) Remotes
There are many options here and many of them are better than kludgy. I personally use a cheapy Packard Bell Fastmedia remote that can be purchase for between $9-15 online or at computer shows. It consists of a cheapy receiver and a remote. There are even better solutions out there especially for a geeks home theater. Some contain IR receivers and transmitters, allowing you to customize macros and control more than the computer and the components. The biggest problem with these solutions are not the remotes themselves but A/V equipments general lack of a singal standard for connecting multiple devices together to act as one devices (would be nice to power on the DVD player and automatically select the input, audio configuration and picture adjustments).
I personally use a program called Girder to control my win box. Another popular program for linux is Lirc.
2) Sound Quality
Newer sound cards have improved drastically in terms of SQ but you are correct, the minijack is less than ideal and computers in general add noise to the mix. For a better solution connect you computer to your A/V receiver using one of the digital audio inputs. This removes the possibility of the minijack or the computer itself adding noise to the analog signal (most newer A/V receivers have digital inputs that use an internal DAC). Mp3s may not be the ultimate in high fidelty, but for most pop music its good enough and having a huge library online for casual listening is worth the trade off.
3) Video Quality
This is as much a fault of the computer as it is the fault of the TV. Most TV-Out capable video cards have pretty crappy picture quality, in fact I've yet to see one that knocked my socks off. Dedicated VGA converters generally do a better job, but are expensive and probably still won't give a picture as good as a $200 DVD player. But for the lucky few who have HDTVs there is hope. Some HDTV's come standard with a VGA or RGB interface and this is the ideal solution for hooking up your computer to such a set. For me, my HDTV doesn't have a VGA connector so instead I have to use a VGA->Y/Pb/Pr (component) transcoder. Using one of these transcoders provides a signal cleaner than any VGA out I've ever seen plus it allows me to use HD resolutions.
I don't recommend using a computer as a primary source in a home theater, but having a PC in the mix can be quite useful. Being able to control an entire home theater, being able to play mp3s and being able to play mame on a large tv make pretty compelling reason to throw a CPU into the cabinet. The AVSForum - HTPC (Home Theater PC) forum has many people who have a PC connected for various reasons.
I thought only guidos and the clinically obtuse would catch the Timmy T reference. Then again you might be either or both.
(were the hell is that damn TKA album)
While I think its pretty nifty, I haven't used, heard or even read a objective review of SliMP3, but I do question the quality of the audio. I am sure that it is fine for casual listening but if your serious about playing mp3s through a quality audio system I would think that there are better ways to go about it.
My first question before I would purchase one of these for use with a quality audio system would be: how good does it sound? MP3s by nature are a compromise of fidelity for the sake of storage space. Add to it distortion or noise and I think it could possibly make for a dissapointing experience.
If you want to make the most in terms of sound quality from a mp3 I would recommend using a computer and a sound card with digital output. The first obvious benefit is that the source is digital meaning it will sound as good as the DAC in your receiver. Secondly analog audio over a composite cable is more noise prone. This brings up the third point of how well is the SliMP3 sheilded? My guess is that you could probably set up a computer in a good case with the previously mentioned sound card on a different electrical circuit a fair distance away from the audio rack with only the digital cable connecting the two systems.
This really is a moral dilemma. My first reaction was that google should not allow removal of messages. Then I decided to check the archive for my old posts and wow, I'm really torn.
As I write this I sit in front of my computer cowering. Any minute now someone I work with and/or respect is bound to call me or IM me a link to some of my earliest posts.
In all seriousness one of the posts did contain my old telephone number from a small business I ran. Instead of allowing removal, google should allow certain information to be edited out for the sake of security or privacy.
I was involved in the use of JXTA immediately after its launch in April of 2001. I led a team of experienced Java developers who used JXTA to produce a Groove-like product that ran on Linux, Windows, and Sun. Here were our findings:
:)
1. JXTA was written by a bunch of inexperienced Java developers. They broke all the rules of Java programming and wrote spagetti code. I think they discovered Design Patterns in the middle of their project and overused and abused them, yielding worse code.
You seem to miss the essence of what JXTA is. From the outset JXTA has been a project to develop a set of protocols for managing P2P interaction. To confuse JXTA with its implementation is both inaccurate and unfair. If you were expecting a turn key solution for the initial release I think you need to stop and really think about how you set expectations. P2P was and still is a moving target and the initial release of JXTA blatantly shows this. Trying to be all things to all people is not easy as linux has proven. I am quite confident when I say, had JXTA's only purpose been to create a cool file sharing app, thats what would have been delivered. Instead JXTA aimed to create a frame work for P2P protocols, this goes beyond just sending a copy of some song (that should be downloadable from the publisher for a reasonable price).
That said the initial release of the Java implementation of the JXTA protocols was pretty ugly. I can't say I can think of another open source project who's code didn't need a lot of rewriting after the first release. The source code has been cleaned up considerably and the great part about the Java implementation being open source is that you could have helped clean it up.
2. They wrote demonstrations that used the pipe and filter architecture pattern to construct a unix shell essentially. One could list the peers on the network, pipe it through more, and wow your boss. But wait, it doesn't stop there - they created a chat program -- oooh.. IRC, IM anyone? When the time came to implement a real application, it was near impossible
Yes JXTA was/is a R&D project, and yes the first application was a shell utility targeted at developers to get them accustomed to the concepts behind the protocols.
As far as implementation of new applications, you're very right. Early on the Java implementation API was cryptic and unfriendly. One of the most frustrating limitations of the Java implementation was the requirement on the part of the application to poll for events. While it is still not perfect this has been addressed in newer versions along with many other API problems. API naming changes and the addition of listener interfaces for events are just a couple of the changes.
3. The firewall/double firewall tunneling didn't work, so LAN deployment only folks!
Now your showing how early you gave up on the project. The limitations on connection were much improved rather early and today work quite well.
4. The RVs, where peers gather and discover one another, were designed to only handle 10 socket connections, 4 of which were persistent. Nice and scalable! No failover support for the 1st release, BTW
Where in P2P land does it say that all connections must be connected all the time? Having the 4 most used connections remain open with a pool of 6 connections available for transient communication seems like a reasonable starting point and IIRC thats why the 10 sockets were split as 4 and 6. I am honestly not sure how the connection pooling is implemented today but this sounds better than Gnutella where you have a fixed number of connections to a fixed number of peers regardless of how active they are.
5. There were a lot of holes in the specification and thus ports to other languages will yield them potentially incompatible above the basic network protocol(which is XML, BTW, and thus slow as binary exchange of files need to be BASE64 encoded)
Wow, a early release of an ambitious project with holes in the specification. Its a collection of protocols, and last I checked newer protocols contain versioning information because nobody expects them to be 100% out of the gate. Maybe if you stuck around long enough to offer some input (it is an opensource project after all) the protocols would be more to your liking and a little more cohesive.
6. The entire JXTA project is tagged as a research and development project only. This means that unlike Jini, which obtained a large marketing and development budget, Sun is throwing a lot of cheap developers and little marketing to this project.
It is a R&D project because the target is not fully defined. There are many uses for P2P type interaction beyond mp3 file sharing, some of which have yet to become apparent. If all the potential uses for P2P style interaction were known, JXTA or something else would already own the scene. Instead you criticize a project that is open not only in source but open in definition.
In the end, it didn't deliver what it promised, it wasn't built for production use (Jini at least was, to some degree thank you Mr. Joy), and missed a lot of concepts necessary for effective peer networking.
Jini also had a longer development period for a fixed set of goals before it was released. Had Sun waited till JXTA was more robust and better defined before opening the protocols and the java implementation source code to the public, you'd probably be here bitching that XYZ feature was unsupported. Instead the project was opened rather early so that it could evolve as the developers using it needed it.
Where are they now? Not sure.. We quit looking at their code around July and concentrated on other network alternatives - settling on Jabber.
Last I checked they were still trying to build the holy grail of P2P interaction. don't want to call you a liar, but after responding to your 3rd point I can say that you stopped looking before July.
What a disappointment!
I agree 100%, posting today using arguments based on facts from months ago is kind of dissapointing. By your logic linux sucks since it doesn't support XYZ video card. Next time maybe you could supply accurate time frames so people can judge for themselves, then again I guess thats asking a bit much from an Anonymous Coward.
I have been off and on with JXTA for quite some time now and not all your points have been totally off base. But JXTA tries to be many things and has come a long way in a rather short time. The great part about Open Source is that contributing talks and bullshit walks.
The Z80, in its day, was a complicated chip. Now allotting that much board space for 'only' that much functionality seems like a waste. As a result, the Z80 has being sold more and more as IP to be embedded in a larger chip than as a whole chip itself. Here are [vautomation.com] some [synopsys.com] cores [evatronix.pl].
Was this their business model? Resell an existing technology until they could no longer sustain themselves?
Their existing IP even if ancient is very valuable but were they working on any new technology? Last I heard the royalties on the wheel were pretty slim.
Why was this modded down, even if its not true (which I believe it is), I have had several installers tell me that they will not install on a manual vehicle. Its the first thing that comes out of their mouth when you ask for a remote starter - "Is the car a manual?".
That said these new fancy gearboxes are manuals in the sense that they have a clutch, but they operate like an automatics except with lightning quick shifts (0.2 seconds). When the vehicle is started the gearbox is automatically put into neutral before engaging the starter. This is a requirement since they do not have an actual shift lever in the car (everything is done automatically or via paddles/buttons on the steering wheel).
For Christmas this year I was really hoping for yet another video codec to bring my live video to a cell phone that I don't have and couldn't use if I did.
In other news: KernelHappy promises to at least scan what he posts before clicking submit.
*NEWSFLASH*
There are hyrdolically actuated gearboxes being manufactured for consumer vehicles. Technology has moved from F1 racing into Ferraris and now BMW is offering a hydrolically operated 6spd gearbox with a clutch and all in the european spec M3 (possible the M3 GTR or something like that).
Thats what pressure switches under the driver (or passenger) seats are for.
There are tradeoffs in everything. If you want the remote start ability you give up some of the security.
As far as leaving an entire key in place I guess that depends on the car and the kit your using. My Acura has one of the mentioned keys and when I looked into a remote start for it, I was told I needed to buy a spare key which would be disassembled to get just the coded portion out. I decided it wasn't for me.
But the point about cars being less hackable is valid. For years manufacturers have been making it harder to replace stock radios, and if you want to retain steering wheel controls your going to need lots of electrical tape and redbull.
I think Mercedes Benz has taken this to an entirely new level. New MB vehicles are incredibly difficult to steal thanks to their code hopping IR keys, so much so that the theft portion of insurance rates on them are down right cheap (which is good). But forget putting a remote starter in your brand new benz. Last time I tried counting there are 97 buttons within reach of the driver in the S class (I counted knobs as one switch even if they had more than one selectable position). All of this runs through a central computer in the car so basically if you want a different stereo system you better know german and feel like dumpster diving at MB headquarters.
Mercedes has a integrated cell phone system that comes with voice recognition. It uses a standard motorola timeport phone, identical in every sense except the firmware. Yet if I plug in my old timeport the car refuses to recognize it. Mercedes apparently thinks that the $87K you spend on the car with the phone isn't enough, they want the extra $450 for every phone you want to use in the car.
I'm currently trying to figure out how to get a copy of the firmware off the timeport that comes with the benz system so that I can put it on my original timeport.
This is quite sad, among manufacturers there is zero incentive or requirement to play nicely. I understand that they want to protect profit margins but its damn near predatory. There was an article on wired about some company offering a in car voice recognition system that works with bluetooth enabled cell phones. Great idea, too bad bluetooth is a technological unicorn and car manufacturers are bound to shut these guys out of the business.
Do Home Security firms get in trouble when their devices tip a criminal to police presence on their property? I doubt it. How would this be different?
Yes, but no. If the security firm notified the suspect that they were being surveilled by authorities they may be interfering with a criminal investigation. However, if I was running a large crime empire and I hired someone to find out if I was under surveillance and they found out that I was, I would not let those surveilling me know I was aware of them. Knowing if and how you're under surveillance would be a great benefit, allowing you to lay down a false scent and better hide your activities. So the first order of business would be to hide the knowledge.
Furthermore if such a company finds something but they are not sure what it is, they can rightfully tell the client that "SOMEONE" is listening. I think they would have a major problem only if they knowingly interfered with a police investigation.
I know several linesmen working for Verizon in the NYC area and they described how a wiretap is generaly obfuscated (by setting up weird routes for the lines, etc) and they all get to hear the same story when they first start. The story goes that a linesmen found a wiretap on some big shots line while troubleshooting, figuring he would collect a "finders fee" and maybe be owed a little favor he decided to inform the customer. Only problem is that he wasn't too bright and decided to call the customer on the line that was tapped, thus letting the FBI and whoever else listening know that he was blowing the whistle. He supposedly was prosecuted and relieved of his job.
One question comes to my mind, is the FBI stupid enough to try and use magic lantern on savvy people?
The Nicky Scarfo case seems to be the precedent for computer surveillance so far. Savy enough to use a computer, but I doubt he was any kind of virus hunting guru.
Would the FBI be willing to risk exposing the signature of magic lantern to the general public by using it on users more likely to know how to find it?
If the virus companies roll over and let the FBI sqeak by easily, they effectively help the FBI keep the honest people honest while people with enough incentive go about there wrong doings march on. As a bonus they leave a wide backdoor open in the protection that honest people rely on to protect their data from wrong-doers.
This idea is so great I bet that the brain surgeon behind it has at least 2-3 previous dot-bombs under their belt.
The XBox is a console in the sense that it has hardware stability; you know exactly what you're coding for, and a PC in simplicity. I'ld expect it to be a great hit in the game-programming industry...
This makes sense in theory but how well does that hold up? From what I've seen Sony seems to redesign the PS2 every 3 weeks. They have done some major revisions to the motherboards I'd guess for the sake of cost and possibly in an attempt to defeat mod chips (unsuccessful on the later part).
From what I've seen there have been minimal problems with such revisions in other consoles to this point but will it remain that way?
If I was cynical I'd say MS might have just left the box very hackable. Just think about it, they have cash to burn, wouldn't mind losing money if it pushed another 900lb gorilla (Sony) out of the market and put their system under everyones TV's. Then again I still think that Sega leaked the way to hack the DreamCast as a last ditch attempt to try and boost console sales (people do weird things when ships sink).
(I don't think they intentionally left it hackable though, the game market is lucrative as it is.)
Interestingly enough I haven't heard anything about the copyprotection behind the Xbox. Anyone have any information regarding the schemes used?
This seems like a really bad move for a company that has been skating the edge with the opensource community over their latest OS.
IIRC part of the motivation behind PNG was that Compuserve owns the patent on the GIF format and was beginning to flex it. GIF support was removed from the GD library for this very reason.
If they have some other motivation for trying to enforce this patent and win, lets hope they create some sort of license to allow the opensource community to continue to use it. Otherwise they will sour more people than they already have.
I'm pretty sure FedEX Ground used to be RPS.
I have never had a problem with items delivered by air using FedEx but about 3 weeks ago I received 3, yes count them 3 replacement monitors shipped to me via FedEx ground before the fourth one arrived intact.
The first one was missing 1/3 of the box by the time it got here I refused shipment and didn't even look inside. The second one had its top left corner smashed in. The third one had the base and bottom of the housing cracked the same as the one in the story.
I moved most of my stuff cross country via UPS without a single piece being damaged (but I did insure it). Moral of the story is I've had better luck with UPS, but FedEx Ground seems to have a serious problems.
Your point about the CPU overhead is spot on. IDE does have extra system overhead and thats fact.
But there is a solution, IDE RAID5 controllers. They have extra hardware on the controller that offloads the IDE overhead from the system. They actually appear as SCSI arrays to the system.
Unfortunately the last I checked, these controlelrs didn't live up to the promise of performance that they are theoretically capable of and they were quite pricey (~$300+).
But there is always hope.