Not if you plan to power it with your on-board chip or internal audiocard.
Its not the speakers so much as the soundcard (and the placement of its ad/da converters) that makes a PC worthy of an audiophiles interest. As long as the converters are sitting on a PCI card, or worse yet, on-board, interference is bound to turn the average audiophile away.
There exist solutions for getting the converters outside the PC case (breakout boxes) that certainly help, and if you keep it digital all the way from PC to your sound-system (no i dont mean a cheapy set of speakers from Logitech) things can get even cleaner. The Hammerfall and DIGI cards from RME for instance are a nice option in this case.
But then if you're talking true audiophile, they'd laugh at even thinking about having a PC anywhere near where they plan to listen to music. The fans on pretty much any moderm PC lift your ambient sound-floor to somewhere in the -60db range regardless of the quality of your output chain.
So the answer is no. If an audiophile is going to spend $10,000 to buy a set of headphones, they dont want a PC. But then there are audiophiles and there are audiophiles.
...but why don't people ask for actual money when selling?
2 reasons my friend.
1) Cause money costs the purchaser a lot whereas stock options cost them jack-shit. They simply dilute the value of every other shareholder.
2) Because stock options cost the purchaser a lot less than actual cash, the seller can ask for a lot more. 1 million in cash is really a lot more to ask for than 1 million in stock options.
That being said, in a strong bull market (like the late 90s when tech stocks were so hilariously overvalued) a million in stock options might be worth 2 million a couple of weeks later. You just need to know when to sell.
1) If MS legalizes the mod chips... I wasnt aware that MS had transcended its role as a soft/hardware manufacturer and entered into the realms of law. How exactly would MS legalize something? Hell if we're at it, I think I might start a company up and legalize pot.
2) They're only into it because they think they're thwarting "The Man". Umm no. There are people involved in xbox-linux development for all sorts of reasons. Personally its so that I can run a quiet PC in my lounge and bedrooms with 800x600 res on BIG screen TVs. Much nicer and cooler (temperature) than running a 19" monitor. Most of the dev team do it for a personal learning challenge.
3) There won't be any more consoles released without a hard drive-it changes everything once you've used it. Ummm no. I personally see solid state storage as a much more likely successor in the short to medium term. By sticking a PC HDD in a console you effectively place a 3-5 year life on the machine (at best). After that the drive dies, you're screwed. Sure this implaces a nice inbuilt obsolesence for MS to ensure you need to buy an Xbox2, but for me, I still like to play my Sega Genesis once in a while.
4) No quote this time, but just to let you know. The modchip itself is completely legal in any country anywhere in the world. All it is is a BIOS chip. Its the BIOS code on the chip that has questionable legal status. The earlier BIOSes were all coded using a warez'ed version of the MS XDK, so the released code is illegal. Today however there is a completely legal, non XDK BIOS called Cromwell developed by (you guessed it) the xbox-linux guys (props to all an sundry).
So yeah, its all just to thwart the man.....you asshat.
Well that might be the case if you were talking about firewalling off a vulnerable, totally undesired service, but there are very valid uses for the messenger service in a corporate/workgroup environment. What you propose is the equivalent of stopping something like NFS in a *nix environment. Sure, we know its a big potential vulnerability, but the uses outweigh the negatives, so you firewall it off and run tcp_wrappers. Allow access only to those systems that require it. If you want to stop every possible vulnerable service on a Win2k/XP workstation, you're pretty much going to have to disable remote and local logins, but not before you disable every other service. Some things you just have to live with and protect as best you can.
Mind you, if your firewall is a) setup to allow open access on hardware failure or b) likely to fall to "enemy action", you've got bigger problems than popup spam messages.
I was reading a few posts in this thread and started thinking "Hmmm, so he works for a BIG company. There might be some chance such a person would be googleable." So I looked at the email of the poster, griffis@mailexcite.com and google away at griffis.
The first few pages showed nothing, but then BINGO!! http://www.nab.org/conventions/includes/p articipan tbio.asp?id=10985.
Finally MS is implementing the security policy they always wanted.;)
"Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this"
I have those moments all the time. I'll be sitting at home thinking, geez, I havent had a W32.worm rape my system in months, I'd better boot into Windows.
It is my belief that RedHat is not successful because of their desktop distro but because of their server distros and services they provide.
I presume you mean that "RedHat is successful not because of their dekstop distro" rather than "RedHat is not succesful, because of their desktop distro..."
Big difference there and I agree with you to some extent. Nobody 'selling' Linux is 'successful' with a desktop distro. Right at this point in time you dont make money from a desktop distro, or really for that matter with a server distro. IMHO RedHat are succesful because of marketing. People have heard of RedHat, so RedHat becomes Linux. Add this to agreements with IBM, Dell and Compaq to ship RH7.X with new server hardware and you have a foot in the door. Name recognition is the hardest part in getting acceptance.
I personally wish that RedHat would completely separate their desktop and server OSs (Advanced Server aside). I really hate the fact that it is becoming harder and harder to do a 'stock'ish' install of a server without requiring X. More and more of the administration tools are X only and i'm fscked if I'm going to run X on any server I build.
Oh, and success is a relative thing. In pure business terms RedHat isnt exactly what you'd call a roaring success, but with the brand recognition being developed, in time I think they could be.
The GeForce4 series of cards were a big improvement over the GF2 and GF3 in TV output and DVD rendering. There is a definite visual improvement in watching DVDs on a GF4 vs GF3 and GF2. You also get 1024x768 TV output versus 800x600 in the pre GF4 cards.
Cap it off with the fact that the GF4 Ti4200 are arguably the best bang for buck card on the market and you have a few reasons.
Plenty of people have already pointed out that Linus' tree isn't Linux end of story. The way I look at it, Linus' tree is what he runs on his computers. Alan Cox's tree is what he runs on his computers, etc etc. They are just kind enough to let all of us run the same thing on our computers.
If you want Linus to include your patches, ie, you want him to run your code on his computers, you better give him a good reason to do so. If you want your code to run on your computers, make your own tree. If you want your code to run on every RedHat install, persuade RedHat. Its really not that difficult a concept.
Yes it immoral, but thats just the way that capitalism 'works'. The same story is being played out all over the world in nations of varying technological advancement. Big business has developed a hold over government to the extent that in many many cases, the outdated or inferior technology becomes government sanctioned and the opposition becomes if not outlawed, then at least severely hampered in its development.
This is a situation which, IMHO, will only increase as we see massive values for companies being created overnight (in business terms) for IT related products which are _bound_ to become outdated in a matter of a few years. For the lucky few like MS, they were able to get the wealth early, buy the politicians and can now sit back and reap the rewards. For anyone in competition, the barrier to entry just got a whole lot higher. Not only do you need a better product, but you need a spare billion dollars to throw at Capital Hill.
Gotta love that combination of capitalism and 'democracy'.
I'm sorry, but its not beyond the realms of possibility to decrypt an encrypted file.
What algorithms do they use? Do you know for sure that there aren't backdoors in those algorithms? I mean personally I dont think that the NSA permitted 128 bit encryption to be exported outside the states if they didnt have some backdoor to decrypt without brute-forcing.
Add to this that there are some legislatures in the world who arent keen on people having ANY form of encrypted file on their systems. The existence of anything encrypted thus points a finger of guilt regardless of the content.
Take for instance China, where Freenet's benefits would me most keenly appreciated. They arent even permitted to download the thing under export restrictions. So someone who _did_ download and use it would be easily detected; just follow the encrypted traffic flow.
Far too many improvements have occured between the 0.3 series and the newly stable 0.5 release. A few highlights are in order, though:
* Security
o Strong public-key cryptography used for inter-node communication which prevents man-in-the-middle attacks.
o Node announcement protocol which eliminates the need for any central directory.
o File-sizes enforced to a power-of-two to prevent traffic analysis.
* Publishing
o Support for splitfiles and redundant encoding (improves reachability of large files)
o Enhanced Freenet Client Protocol (FCP) for application developers.
* Usability
o FProxy (The Freenet Gateway) beautified and improved
o Node Status information readily available
* Resource Utilization
o Improvements made in performance, memory usage, and threading.
* Tool Support
o Many third party tools ready for website authoring, bulletin-board style discussions, and some near completion like Internet Streaming Radio, and more.
One of the interesting things is nobody knows what data is being stored on there (sic) computer
The one thing that always makes me wonder with Freenet is the potential liability for hosting 'questionable' content. If for instance, my node is used for storing some part of some kiddy pr0n and the authorities decide for whatever reason to inspect my PCs, how am I to prove that I didn't source the file myself. In fact, by hosting a node, it could be argued that I am soliciting for files of that nature.
Whilst the files are presumably encrypted in transit and on disk, its still an illegal file stored on my system.
There should not be a differnce between the distros that RH makes
There's a good reason for maintaining different versions of RedHat. The Advanced Server version is left at a stable release level for a longer period of time. The releases occur approximately every 12-18 months so you get a stable platform and can focus on planning migration and upgrade cycles. For example, Advanced Server 2.1 is based on RedHat 7.2 and was released in March 02. I predict v3 sometime H203 when gcc has gotten stable on RedHat 8.X.
Also its got new features borrowed from a development build of the 2.5 kernel, such as asynchronous I/O, optimized SCSI and process scheduling and can scale up to eight processors from the non Advanced server version's max of four.
I'm personally trying to persuade my boss to stop pushing RedHatX.X and start getting Advanced Server on more sites. I'm dreading the widespread upgrade from 7.3 to 8 that my boss is sure to drop in my lap in the nice quiet time between Christmas and New Years....
Slashdot Mirror
The way I see it, its either one of two things;
/. from posting ;)
1) New slashcode to prevent first-posts by stopping any posts
or
2) A new lameness filter that stops anyone who reads
Not if you plan to power it with your on-board chip or internal audiocard.
Its not the speakers so much as the soundcard (and the placement of its ad/da converters) that makes a PC worthy of an audiophiles interest. As long as the converters are sitting on a PCI card, or worse yet, on-board, interference is bound to turn the average audiophile away.
There exist solutions for getting the converters outside the PC case (breakout boxes) that certainly help, and if you keep it digital all the way from PC to your sound-system (no i dont mean a cheapy set of speakers from Logitech) things can get even cleaner. The Hammerfall and DIGI cards from RME for instance are a nice option in this case.
But then if you're talking true audiophile, they'd laugh at even thinking about having a PC anywhere near where they plan to listen to music. The fans on pretty much any moderm PC lift your ambient sound-floor to somewhere in the -60db range regardless of the quality of your output chain.
So the answer is no. If an audiophile is going to spend $10,000 to buy a set of headphones, they dont want a PC. But then there are audiophiles and there are audiophiles.
...but why don't people ask for actual money when selling?
2 reasons my friend.
1) Cause money costs the purchaser a lot whereas stock options cost them jack-shit. They simply dilute the value of every other shareholder.
2) Because stock options cost the purchaser a lot less than actual cash, the seller can ask for a lot more. 1 million in cash is really a lot more to ask for than 1 million in stock options.
That being said, in a strong bull market (like the late 90s when tech stocks were so hilariously overvalued) a million in stock options might be worth 2 million a couple of weeks later. You just need to know when to sell.
Just where do I start?
1) If MS legalizes the mod chips...
I wasnt aware that MS had transcended its role as a soft/hardware manufacturer and entered into the realms of law. How exactly would MS legalize something? Hell if we're at it, I think I might start a company up and legalize pot.
2) They're only into it because they think they're thwarting "The Man".
Umm no. There are people involved in xbox-linux development for all sorts of reasons. Personally its so that I can run a quiet PC in my lounge and bedrooms with 800x600 res on BIG screen TVs. Much nicer and cooler (temperature) than running a 19" monitor. Most of the dev team do it for a personal learning challenge.
3) There won't be any more consoles released without a hard drive-it changes everything once you've used it.
Ummm no. I personally see solid state storage as a much more likely successor in the short to medium term. By sticking a PC HDD in a console you effectively place a 3-5 year life on the machine (at best). After that the drive dies, you're screwed. Sure this implaces a nice inbuilt obsolesence for MS to ensure you need to buy an Xbox2, but for me, I still like to play my Sega Genesis once in a while.
4) No quote this time, but just to let you know. The modchip itself is completely legal in any country anywhere in the world. All it is is a BIOS chip. Its the BIOS code on the chip that has questionable legal status. The earlier BIOSes were all coded using a warez'ed version of the MS XDK, so the released code is illegal. Today however there is a completely legal, non XDK BIOS called Cromwell developed by (you guessed it) the xbox-linux guys (props to all an sundry).
So yeah, its all just to thwart the man.....you asshat.
But I just wanted to test out my new sig. I thought it was kind of appropriate.
Once again sorry to all and sundry.
Well that might be the case if you were talking about firewalling off a vulnerable, totally undesired service, but there are very valid uses for the messenger service in a corporate/workgroup environment. What you propose is the equivalent of stopping something like NFS in a *nix environment. Sure, we know its a big potential vulnerability, but the uses outweigh the negatives, so you firewall it off and run tcp_wrappers. Allow access only to those systems that require it. If you want to stop every possible vulnerable service on a Win2k/XP workstation, you're pretty much going to have to disable remote and local logins, but not before you disable every other service. Some things you just have to live with and protect as best you can.
Mind you, if your firewall is a) setup to allow open access on hardware failure or b) likely to fall to "enemy action", you've got bigger problems than popup spam messages.
Note: I'm assuming you have duplicate equipment since that's the only way to physically move with no downtime
Either that or one heck of a transportable UPS and a kickass wireless setup!
I was reading a few posts in this thread and started thinking "Hmmm, so he works for a BIG company. There might be some chance such a person would be googleable." So I looked at the email of the poster, griffis@mailexcite.com and google away at griffis.
p articipan tbio.asp?id=10985.
;)
The first few pages showed nothing, but then BINGO!!
http://www.nab.org/conventions/includes/
Finally MS is implementing the security policy they always wanted.
Meanwhile, the hospital was figuring out how to run at its usual pace without the 100,000 e-mails it usually sends a day.
So thats where they're doing all those penis enlargements!
"Ah shit I am in Linux, now I need to reboot to windows before I can do this"
I have those moments all the time. I'll be sitting at home thinking, geez, I havent had a W32.worm rape my system in months, I'd better boot into Windows.
It is my belief that RedHat is not successful because of their desktop distro but because of their server distros and services they provide.
I presume you mean that "RedHat is successful not because of their dekstop distro" rather than "RedHat is not succesful, because of their desktop distro..."
Big difference there and I agree with you to some extent. Nobody 'selling' Linux is 'successful' with a desktop distro. Right at this point in time you dont make money from a desktop distro, or really for that matter with a server distro. IMHO RedHat are succesful because of marketing. People have heard of RedHat, so RedHat becomes Linux. Add this to agreements with IBM, Dell and Compaq to ship RH7.X with new server hardware and you have a foot in the door. Name recognition is the hardest part in getting acceptance.
I personally wish that RedHat would completely separate their desktop and server OSs (Advanced Server aside). I really hate the fact that it is becoming harder and harder to do a 'stock'ish' install of a server without requiring X. More and more of the administration tools are X only and i'm fscked if I'm going to run X on any server I build.
Oh, and success is a relative thing. In pure business terms RedHat isnt exactly what you'd call a roaring success, but with the brand recognition being developed, in time I think they could be.
The GeForce4 series of cards were a big improvement over the GF2 and GF3 in TV output and DVD rendering. There is a definite visual improvement in watching DVDs on a GF4 vs GF3 and GF2. You also get 1024x768 TV output versus 800x600 in the pre GF4 cards.
Cap it off with the fact that the GF4 Ti4200 are arguably the best bang for buck card on the market and you have a few reasons.
microsoft should be paying us money to use it, anything more than that is "overcharge."
I couldnt have put it better myself.
Take a look at CERIAS's sponsor list for a few reasons;
s or s/
http://www.cerias.purdue.edu/about/related/spon
"I was doing my nuclear simulations on the ASCII White and it was like BEEP BEEP BEEP...and like half my work was gone..."
Alright fess up. Which of those is the goatse ip?
I dont know what it is, but I just get nervous around IPs on slashdot.;)
Plenty of people have already pointed out that Linus' tree isn't Linux end of story. The way I look at it, Linus' tree is what he runs on his computers. Alan Cox's tree is what he runs on his computers, etc etc. They are just kind enough to let all of us run the same thing on our computers.
If you want Linus to include your patches, ie, you want him to run your code on his computers, you better give him a good reason to do so. If you want your code to run on your computers, make your own tree. If you want your code to run on every RedHat install, persuade RedHat. Its really not that difficult a concept.
Thats funny, I cant seem to get MS to remove that patch from Windows...maybe we need to talk.
Yes it immoral, but thats just the way that capitalism 'works'. The same story is being played out all over the world in nations of varying technological advancement. Big business has developed a hold over government to the extent that in many many cases, the outdated or inferior technology becomes government sanctioned and the opposition becomes if not outlawed, then at least severely hampered in its development.
This is a situation which, IMHO, will only increase as we see massive values for companies being created overnight (in business terms) for IT related products which are _bound_ to become outdated in a matter of a few years. For the lucky few like MS, they were able to get the wealth early, buy the politicians and can now sit back and reap the rewards. For anyone in competition, the barrier to entry just got a whole lot higher. Not only do you need a better product, but you need a spare billion dollars to throw at Capital Hill.
Gotta love that combination of capitalism and 'democracy'.
I'm sorry, but its not beyond the realms of possibility to decrypt an encrypted file.
What algorithms do they use? Do you know for sure that there aren't backdoors in those algorithms? I mean personally I dont think that the NSA permitted 128 bit encryption to be exported outside the states if they didnt have some backdoor to decrypt without brute-forcing.
Add to this that there are some legislatures in the world who arent keen on people having ANY form of encrypted file on their systems. The existence of anything encrypted thus points a finger of guilt regardless of the content.
Take for instance China, where Freenet's benefits would me most keenly appreciated. They arent even permitted to download the thing under export restrictions. So someone who _did_ download and use it would be easily detected; just follow the encrypted traffic flow.
[Whore mode on]
Whats new in 0.5
Far too many improvements have occured between the 0.3 series and the newly stable 0.5 release. A few highlights are in order, though:
* Security
o Strong public-key cryptography used for inter-node communication which prevents man-in-the-middle attacks.
o Node announcement protocol which eliminates the need for any central directory.
o File-sizes enforced to a power-of-two to prevent traffic analysis.
* Publishing
o Support for splitfiles and redundant encoding (improves reachability of large files)
o Enhanced Freenet Client Protocol (FCP) for application developers.
* Usability
o FProxy (The Freenet Gateway) beautified and improved
o Node Status information readily available
* Resource Utilization
o Improvements made in performance, memory usage, and threading.
* Tool Support
o Many third party tools ready for website authoring, bulletin-board style discussions, and some near completion like Internet Streaming Radio, and more.
And perhaps most importantly, It Just Works!
hehehe
Maybe its like Windows Update where they can figure out what updates your system needs "Without sending any information to Microsoft"
That always makes me laugh, every single time.
One of the interesting things is nobody knows what data is being stored on there (sic) computer
The one thing that always makes me wonder with Freenet is the potential liability for hosting 'questionable' content. If for instance, my node is used for storing some part of some kiddy pr0n and the authorities decide for whatever reason to inspect my PCs, how am I to prove that I didn't source the file myself. In fact, by hosting a node, it could be argued that I am soliciting for files of that nature.
Whilst the files are presumably encrypted in transit and on disk, its still an illegal file stored on my system.
Makes you think anyway....
And I learned that if you collapse the back seats of your car and cut a hole in the boot......oh watit, they caught that guy. I better shutup!!
There should not be a differnce between the distros that RH makes
There's a good reason for maintaining different versions of RedHat. The Advanced Server version is left at a stable release level for a longer period of time. The releases occur approximately every 12-18 months so you get a stable platform and can focus on planning migration and upgrade cycles. For example, Advanced Server 2.1 is based on RedHat 7.2 and was released in March 02. I predict v3 sometime H203 when gcc has gotten stable on RedHat 8.X.
Also its got new features borrowed from a development build of the 2.5 kernel, such as asynchronous I/O, optimized SCSI and process scheduling and can scale up to eight processors from the non Advanced server version's max of four.
I'm personally trying to persuade my boss to stop pushing RedHatX.X and start getting Advanced Server on more sites. I'm dreading the widespread upgrade from 7.3 to 8 that my boss is sure to drop in my lap in the nice quiet time between Christmas and New Years....