The parent poster's argument was that Apple wouldn't release a new interface on the iPod because that would create an "or situation".
Not at all, my question was "Why do people think Apple will use a new touchscreen OR clickwheel." My argument was, again as summed up by Thrudheim, that I believe Apple will release a touchscreen/touchbezel iPod, but it won't be a replacement for the current (music "with video") iPod, but an additional model from which to choose from. Notice again the Subject of my post. Why do people.
Why do you believe "the current iPod Nano CAN do video, based on the chips it uses"? The 1st generation is surely capable of doing MPEG1, MPEG2, as shown by iPodLinux and Rockbox, but most likely not capable of MPEG4/H.264. The 1st gen Nano might share most components with the 5th gen iPod, but it lacks the Broadcom chip, and thus physically does not have the horsepower to the videos currently sold by Apple. Even at the Nano's reduced resolution. The 2nd generation is unknown. If you have the some amazing knowledge about its chips which IPL and Rockbox developers don't have, contact them, they would love your information. As it stands now we don't know enough to say dick about its capabilities, except that they appear quite similar to the 1st gen. (Dual core ARM)
FWIW: The battery life is only extended when watching video, not playing music the same 14h (30GB) and 20h (60/80GB) times are quoted for the generation 5.5 and generation 5. Since no other hardware appears to have changed internally, this appears to be simply a side-effect of the new, brighter, screen, or firmware which better uses the Broadcom chip.
Read my comment again. SAME VERSION OF THE PRODUCT LINE. The Nano is a different version of the product line than the 5th-generation iPod. The Shuffle is a different product line
So the Nano is a different version of the product line than the 5th-gen iPod, and the Shuffle is a different line altogether? That is why the design of the current Nano is different than the design of the current iPod? And again, if you are willing to call the iPod Shuffle a different product line, why aren't you willing to call an iPod Movie a different product line
Btw, I guess what they say is true -- idiots act in groups. That's the only way I could possibly understand 3 different people not reading a comment fully before responding.
Yeah, it has nothing to do with your vague writing style at all.
*A full screen iPod would have worse battery life, all things being equal, than an iPod with a smaller screen.
Well, my PDA has a worse battery than my mp3 player (it has a 240x320 screen). Yet the PDA's battery lasts 2-3 times longer between recharges that the mp3 player (iRiver h320). It seems that the hard drive consumes a lot more energy than the screen, even a relatively large one. Oh, and the most consuming part of the screen is the backlight. If Apples makes a larger screen and sets the backlight to consume no more power than a "small" screen (can be 15% less bright), the big screen won't consume more power.
"all things being equal" means any technique, technology, or trick you use to make a larger screen more battery efficient can also be used to make a small screen more efficient. Larger screens consume more power, period.
As for the hard drive issue, there is a reason the 5th generation 60/80 GB models have a 64 MB RAM buffer.
The backlight might be the largest consumer of screen power, but don't underestimate the drain caused by more pixels to refresh. As Rockbox and ipodlinux have proven w/o a doubt the CPU cycles consumed updating the larger screen of the newer iPods is a significant power drain when compared to the small screens of the Nano and 3rd generation.
Let us assume for a minute that Apple actually plans on producing one of these new interface designs that show up in patent applications from time to time. Why does everyone seem to assume that one of these newfangled non-physical-clickwheel interfaces will be used on a replacement for the iPod as we currently know it? I mean, most of the complaints are right on the money: *A full screen iPod would have worse battery life, all things being equal, than an iPod with a smaller screen. *A non-physical-clickwheel would be harder to use blindly, as in a pocket. *A non-physical-clickwheel would be an abandonment of the most iconic part of the brand. *A "true video" iPod would involve compromises making it a less ideal music player. All these arguments (and more) being legitimate, why do people continue to get worked up in a lather every rumor? Why do people fail to realize that one of these new interface designs, if one ever shows up, will likely be on a new iPod model, not a replacement, but an additional model (video oriented) from which to chose from?
Here is a thought: Always buy used drives: never new.
Then, if one has to surrender a drive for discovery, point out that deleted files could have been created and deleted by the prior owner of the drive.
While that might get you off the hook in a criminal case, this is a civil case, where the burden of proof is substantially lower, I can't imagine such a defense working unless your lawyer has the jury in the palm of their hand already. I think the odds of finding the files as described by the RIAA on a computer located by IP address are slim enough that such a defense wouldn't fly even in a jury trial.
It just means that a court has ruled the plaintiff can't be the one examining the defendant's hard drive. Why it took so long for a judge to decide the one filing complaint isn't exactly a neutral party... maybe this is the first time someone has complained.
Con: Most people in the world don't have a telephone.
While this is indisputably true, it isn't really the point. Do most of the households in the world have a telephone? That is a far more relevant question.
And the sad fact is, yes, most of the households in the world most likely do. Despite Kofi Annan's 2000 statement to the contrary, it is very probable that more than 50% of households in 2000 did, and with the explosive growth of cell phones in Asia and Africa, an almost certainty that >50% do today.
These are not problems that can be solved by engineering. These are problems caused by real physical limits.
A - You need to have a microphone as close to the speaker as possible, and one for each speaker. Noise cancellation works by creating an equal intensity sound 180 degrees out of phase of the sound you are attempting to cancel. Without knowing the distance from speaker to microphone within an accuracy tolerance of 1/8th the wavelength you are attempting to cancel you are dead in the water. B - The idea of resecting the location of the microphone relative to the two earphones is silly. Two point resections are by nature inaccurate when using precision equipment. The idea of using delay time from speakers to microphone is fraught with many additional inaccuracies, not the least of which is multipath. C1 - If you are suggesting a microphone on the Zune can monitor the volume of a wearer's earbuds, then said wearer is listing to their music MUCH too loud already. C2 - If you are suggesting that you could use the Zune's on-board microphone to "benchmark" any given set of headphones...I already addressed this issue. Wearing style and earbud placement in an individual's ear make such a significant difference in the sound pressure reaching the eardrum that this is impossible.
1) Microsoft could have easily designed the Zune to be a better MP3 player; build in a microphone for active noise cancelation and automatic volume adjustment
Active noise cancellation does not work when the microphone is three feet away from the speaker. (As it would be when the Zune is on your hip and the earbuds are in your ears.) Automatic volume adjustment would not only be difficult depending on where you wear your Zune, but potentially dangerous. Unless you are using a known set of headphones the Zune could very easily increase the volume to damaging levels. Increased volume is not a safe response to increased ambient noise. Even with a known set of headphones, wearing style and fit can create variations in sound levels at the eardrum which differ by an order of magnitude.
Efficiency in small devices is MEANINGLESS. What matters is power and energy density by volume and weight. This has both in spades.
Huh? We usually want something to come out of the turbine, usually mechanical power we can use to turn something , like a wheel or a generator. And efficiency is usually particularly welcome in portable devices, unless you like luggnig a bowling-ball tank of propane or somesuch on your wanderings.
To an extent. While high-efficiency is nice, the energy density of hydrocarbon fuel is so fricking much higher than current battery technology that it would take a very inefficient turbine to make it a net-loss.
Windows 2000 will run on any machine than can do Win98, and not only is it much more secure, it is not a performance drag at all. Win2K runs well on my P133 with 80 megs of RAM, and great on my P200 with 256.
those that drafted those never thought that our fellow citizens would have the apathy for tyrrany that we currently do.
This is a faulty assumption made by both sides of almost any political debate.
Humankind has remained mostly unchanged for thousands of years. To presume (without evidence) that Americans of 200+ years ago were somehow vastly different in mode of thought is just silly.
I'll believe it when I see it... my sources inside MS (and no, I ain't giving any proof, so believe me or not, I don't give a shit), say that there are very hard deadlines for Longhorn, with features being left out if they don't meet certain benchmarks, etc... so to hear that they are now taking something, and wasting resources back porting it?
As the article states: "Microsoft decided to back-port both Avalon and Indigo to older versions of Windows -- Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 -- in order to maintain backward compatibility and help seed the application-development market, officials said. " If Microsoft wants to make WinFS a fundamental part of their strategy, they must back port it. Forcing developers to upgrade before they can develop is foolhardy.
My point exactly. Open source firmware can greatly expand not only the feature set of a piece of hardware, but also its useful lifespan. For a perfect example just take a look at all the features added by Svesoft's firmware for the WRT54G series. (please let's not get into a debate over Svesoft's source publishing practices, I just used them as an example, there are many active projects modifying Linksys firmware) Because of Linksys's use of a Linux based firmware we are not dependent on them to patch vulnerabilities or correct bugs. There will come a day when Linksys decides to end support for their Linux powered products, but the impact of that business decision will me minimized for the userbase. I feel this is especially important for pre-standard hardware. Belkin has not promised to make these "pre-N" products compliant with the full standard if or when the standard is certified. Open source firmware removes my dependence on the good will of hardware vendors.
People have said that these sites are closing voluntarily before they get raided. The site owners seem to have solid information about the raids. I doubt they'd close down without it.
The best community sites kept track of ratios to encourage people to upload. Suprnova didn't, but torrentbits did. Unfortunately, that means that the sites maintained databases of everything users downloaded.
Without those databases, the MPAA would have to join swarms and try to collect as many IPs as possible. With such a database, they could look up everything everyone had downloaded through that site.
Yes Torrentbits has detailed records of user accounts - what they've uploaded, and what they've downloaded.
But... Your IP is only attached to that user account on a temporary basis. As soon as you stop seeding or leeching a Torrentbit torrent they no longer have a record of your IP.
If the **AA wants to collect your IP address they simply have to join the swarm. Getting their hands on Torrentbits records will in no way aid them in their attemps to collect IP addresses.
Perhaps some old cypherpunks could come up with a better way to incentivize users to share and participate in the community, without leaving data behind in a database. Maybe something with blind signatures, similar to a digital cash protocol.
Most large tracker sites have long abandoned the pratice of tracking their users via IP address. Many sites now attach a "key" to every.torrent downloaded from their tracker. They use this key to relate a peer with an authorized user in their database. So there is info in their database, but nothing that can be used to attach any particular user with their real-life self.
Re:I know this is an oft repeated point but
on
Upbeat on E-books
·
· Score: 3, Informative
My wife, my best friend, and I all read books almost exclusively on our Palm Pilots now. Takes less getting used to than most people think, and is the most convenient way (and yes - enjoyable) to carry multiple novels and a booklight with you everywhere.
The #bookz channel on IRC has a very large collection of "warez" e-books, and I honestly feel no moral pains while downloading a book I have sitting on my shelf.
As for reading in the bath with a PDA - I do it all the time. I just keep a towel on the floor next to the tub to dry my hand off as need be.
I suggest a used Sony Clie with a 320x320 screen. The higher density display (compared to old Palm Pilot's 160x160) is nice on the eyes.
You can get a quite capable SJ-22 on ebay for $50.
Sony also made a monochrome Clie with a hires screen and a "true white" background unlike most B/W PDA's grey/green. The SJ-20 (I think). Would have better battery power than my SJ-22 with it's color screen.
My wife still reads e-books on my old Handspring Visor. With it's AAA batteries it can last for over a week of ~2 hours a day, easily.
Navigation on earth - based on a cluster of orbiting satellites - is limited by the accuracy of the atomic clock on each satellite. A series of calculations can get millimetre accuracy on the position of a stationary object, but for moving objects like cars and planes the accuracy is no better than a few metres. Only by making faster measurements can this accuracy be improved, something enabled by a more accurate definition of the second.
This is where the article is plane (Haha!) wrong. The limiting factor of GPS accuracy is NOT the atomic clock on each satellite. As I posted earlier in this thread ionospheric delay and signal multipath play a much larger role. Wikipedia has it quite right in this case. Satellite clocks are monitored and adjusted. If a satellite's clock is found to be out of tolerance it is tagged as "unhealthy" and will not be used by any good GPS receiver. Errors in the receiver clock can be calculated and adjusted for if you are receiving four or more satellites.
The phase centre of the receiving antennae is not the same for all directions. Even in the absense of ionosphere and timing errors, one could never be sure (unless the antenna rotation was known).
To the extent this is a problem it can be modeled and accounted for. It's not that big of a problem.
It's not that big of a problem (and easy to account for) because the phase center shifts largely as a function of the elevation and azimuth of the satellite signal.
The Trimble Zephyr Geodetic antennas I often use have a sub-mm phase center repeatability.
Your statement was more true five years ago than it is today. But then, 5 years ago, we used a compass to align our antennas to a known rotation.
The accuracy of the clocks is a small factor in real-time GPS accuracy.
Ionospheric delay plays a much larger role. Survey-grade receivers use both the L1 and the L2 bands in an attempt to better model this delay. Ionospheric delay is frequency-dependent and impacts on the L1 and L2 signals by a differing amounts.
Multipath plays a role also, not as big as the ionosphere, but still larger than the accuracy of the clocks on the GPS satellites.
Slashdot Mirror
Not at all, my question was "Why do people think Apple will use a new touchscreen OR clickwheel."
My argument was, again as summed up by Thrudheim, that I believe Apple will release a touchscreen/touchbezel iPod, but it won't be a replacement for the current (music "with video") iPod, but an additional model from which to choose from.
Notice again the Subject of my post. Why do people.
Why do you believe "the current iPod Nano CAN do video, based on the chips it uses"?
The 1st generation is surely capable of doing MPEG1, MPEG2, as shown by iPodLinux and Rockbox, but most likely not capable of MPEG4/H.264. The 1st gen Nano might share most components with the 5th gen iPod, but it lacks the Broadcom chip, and thus physically does not have the horsepower to the videos currently sold by Apple. Even at the Nano's reduced resolution.
The 2nd generation is unknown. If you have the some amazing knowledge about its chips which IPL and Rockbox developers don't have, contact them, they would love your information. As it stands now we don't know enough to say dick about its capabilities, except that they appear quite similar to the 1st gen. (Dual core ARM)
FWIW:
The battery life is only extended when watching video, not playing music the same 14h (30GB) and 20h (60/80GB) times are quoted for the generation 5.5 and generation 5.
Since no other hardware appears to have changed internally, this appears to be simply a side-effect of the new, brighter, screen, or firmware which better uses the Broadcom chip.
So the Nano is a different version of the product line than the 5th-gen iPod, and the Shuffle is a different line altogether?
That is why the design of the current Nano is different than the design of the current iPod?
And again, if you are willing to call the iPod Shuffle a different product line, why aren't you willing to call an iPod Movie a different product line
Yeah, it has nothing to do with your vague writing style at all.
"all things being equal" means any technique, technology, or trick you use to make a larger screen more battery efficient can also be used to make a small screen more efficient. Larger screens consume more power, period.
As for the hard drive issue, there is a reason the 5th generation 60/80 GB models have a 64 MB RAM buffer.
The backlight might be the largest consumer of screen power, but don't underestimate the drain caused by more pixels to refresh. As Rockbox and ipodlinux have proven w/o a doubt the CPU cycles consumed updating the larger screen of the newer iPods is a significant power drain when compared to the small screens of the Nano and 3rd generation.
Let us assume for a minute that Apple actually plans on producing one of these new interface designs that show up in patent applications from time to time.
Why does everyone seem to assume that one of these newfangled non-physical-clickwheel interfaces will be used on a replacement for the iPod as we currently know it? I mean, most of the complaints are right on the money:
*A full screen iPod would have worse battery life, all things being equal, than an iPod with a smaller screen.
*A non-physical-clickwheel would be harder to use blindly, as in a pocket.
*A non-physical-clickwheel would be an abandonment of the most iconic part of the brand.
*A "true video" iPod would involve compromises making it a less ideal music player.
All these arguments (and more) being legitimate, why do people continue to get worked up in a lather every rumor?
Why do people fail to realize that one of these new interface designs, if one ever shows up, will likely be on a new iPod model, not a replacement, but an additional model (video oriented) from which to chose from?
While that might get you off the hook in a criminal case, this is a civil case, where the burden of proof is substantially lower, I can't imagine such a defense working unless your lawyer has the jury in the palm of their hand already. I think the odds of finding the files as described by the RIAA on a computer located by IP address are slim enough that such a defense wouldn't fly even in a jury trial.
It just means that a court has ruled the plaintiff can't be the one examining the defendant's hard drive. Why it took so long for a judge to decide the one filing complaint isn't exactly a neutral party... maybe this is the first time someone has complained.
While this is indisputably true, it isn't really the point.
Do most of the households in the world have a telephone? That is a far more relevant question.
And the sad fact is, yes, most of the households in the world most likely do. Despite Kofi Annan's 2000 statement to the contrary, it is very probable that more than 50% of households in 2000 did, and with the explosive growth of cell phones in Asia and Africa, an almost certainty that >50% do today.
These are not problems that can be solved by engineering. These are problems caused by real physical limits.
A - You need to have a microphone as close to the speaker as possible, and one for each speaker. Noise cancellation works by creating an equal intensity sound 180 degrees out of phase of the sound you are attempting to cancel. Without knowing the distance from speaker to microphone within an accuracy tolerance of 1/8th the wavelength you are attempting to cancel you are dead in the water.
B - The idea of resecting the location of the microphone relative to the two earphones is silly. Two point resections are by nature inaccurate when using precision equipment. The idea of using delay time from speakers to microphone is fraught with many additional inaccuracies, not the least of which is multipath.
C1 - If you are suggesting a microphone on the Zune can monitor the volume of a wearer's earbuds, then said wearer is listing to their music MUCH too loud already.
C2 - If you are suggesting that you could use the Zune's on-board microphone to "benchmark" any given set of headphones...I already addressed this issue. Wearing style and earbud placement in an individual's ear make such a significant difference in the sound pressure reaching the eardrum that this is impossible.
Active noise cancellation does not work when the microphone is three feet away from the speaker. (As it would be when the Zune is on your hip and the earbuds are in your ears.)
Automatic volume adjustment would not only be difficult depending on where you wear your Zune, but potentially dangerous. Unless you are using a known set of headphones the Zune could very easily increase the volume to damaging levels. Increased volume is not a safe response to increased ambient noise. Even with a known set of headphones, wearing style and fit can create variations in sound levels at the eardrum which differ by an order of magnitude.
Take two time-separated GPS positions.
To an extent.
While high-efficiency is nice, the energy density of hydrocarbon fuel is so fricking much higher than current battery technology that it would take a very inefficient turbine to make it a net-loss.
Windows 2000 will run on any machine than can do Win98, and not only is it much more secure, it is not a performance drag at all.
Win2K runs well on my P133 with 80 megs of RAM, and great on my P200 with 256.
The events of which date have had more of an effect on your daily life?
A- 2001-09-11
B- 1982-09-29
I'll argue B.
This is a faulty assumption made by both sides of almost any political debate.
Humankind has remained mostly unchanged for thousands of years. To presume (without evidence) that Americans of 200+ years ago were somehow vastly different in mode of thought is just silly.
As the article states: "Microsoft decided to back-port both Avalon and Indigo to older versions of Windows -- Windows XP and Windows Server 2003 -- in order to maintain backward compatibility and help seed the application-development market, officials said. "
If Microsoft wants to make WinFS a fundamental part of their strategy, they must back port it. Forcing developers to upgrade before they can develop is foolhardy.
As long as they don't check the post-it note under your desk - the password is secure!
But seriously, does a policy like this do anything but encourace people to write down their passwords?
My point exactly.
Open source firmware can greatly expand not only the feature set of a piece of hardware, but also its useful lifespan. For a perfect example just take a look at all the features added by Svesoft's firmware for the WRT54G series. (please let's not get into a debate over Svesoft's source publishing practices, I just used them as an example, there are many active projects modifying Linksys firmware)
Because of Linksys's use of a Linux based firmware we are not dependent on them to patch vulnerabilities or correct bugs. There will come a day when Linksys decides to end support for their Linux powered products, but the impact of that business decision will me minimized for the userbase.
I feel this is especially important for pre-standard hardware. Belkin has not promised to make these "pre-N" products compliant with the full standard if or when the standard is certified. Open source firmware removes my dependence on the good will of hardware vendors.
But can they run Linux? http://www.linksys.com/products/product.asp?grid=3 3&scid=35&prid=601
Yes Torrentbits has detailed records of user accounts - what they've uploaded, and what they've downloaded.
But...
Your IP is only attached to that user account on a temporary basis. As soon as you stop seeding or leeching a Torrentbit torrent they no longer have a record of your IP.
If the **AA wants to collect your IP address they simply have to join the swarm. Getting their hands on Torrentbits records will in no way aid them in their attemps to collect IP addresses.
Most large tracker sites have long abandoned the pratice of tracking their users via IP address. Many sites now attach a "key" to every
So there is info in their database, but nothing that can be used to attach any particular user with their real-life self.
My wife, my best friend, and I all read books almost exclusively on our Palm Pilots now. Takes less getting used to than most people think, and is the most convenient way (and yes - enjoyable) to carry multiple novels and a booklight with you everywhere.
The #bookz channel on IRC has a very large collection of "warez" e-books, and I honestly feel no moral pains while downloading a book I have sitting on my shelf.
As for reading in the bath with a PDA - I do it all the time. I just keep a towel on the floor next to the tub to dry my hand off as need be.
I suggest a used Sony Clie with a 320x320 screen. The higher density display (compared to old Palm Pilot's 160x160) is nice on the eyes.
You can get a quite capable SJ-22 on ebay for $50.
Sony also made a monochrome Clie with a hires screen and a "true white" background unlike most B/W PDA's grey/green. The SJ-20 (I think). Would have better battery power than my SJ-22 with it's color screen.
My wife still reads e-books on my old Handspring Visor. With it's AAA batteries it can last for over a week of ~2 hours a day, easily.
This is where the article is plane (Haha!) wrong.
The limiting factor of GPS accuracy is NOT the atomic clock on each satellite. As I posted earlier in this thread ionospheric delay and signal multipath play a much larger role.
Wikipedia has it quite right in this case. Satellite clocks are monitored and adjusted. If a satellite's clock is found to be out of tolerance it is tagged as "unhealthy" and will not be used by any good GPS receiver. Errors in the receiver clock can be calculated and adjusted for if you are receiving four or more satellites.
To the extent this is a problem it can be modeled and accounted for. It's not that big of a problem.
It's not that big of a problem (and easy to account for) because the phase center shifts largely as a function of the elevation and azimuth of the satellite signal.
The Trimble Zephyr Geodetic antennas I often use have a sub-mm phase center repeatability.
Your statement was more true five years ago than it is today. But then, 5 years ago, we used a compass to align our antennas to a known rotation.
The accuracy of the clocks is a small factor in real-time GPS accuracy.
Ionospheric delay plays a much larger role. Survey-grade receivers use both the L1 and the L2 bands in an attempt to better model this delay. Ionospheric delay is frequency-dependent and impacts on the L1 and L2 signals by a differing amounts.
Multipath plays a role also, not as big as the ionosphere, but still larger than the accuracy of the clocks on the GPS satellites.