"At that time, the hardware was said to be final, with some minor work left on the accompanying software suite."
Read: the developers were scrambling to get last-minute hacks working. I've bought the past two All-in-wonder cards. It's a great product, but the software, IMHO, is the weak point. A clumsy interface and oddball errors, along with unusually long load-times are a definite downside. Another is the remote software- it only lets you control SOME parts of SOME of the apps. I'd like to see the remote be able to be fully customizeable per application, including non-ATI apps. The Winamp control will be cool, but what about MoodLogic, etc?
Not to complain too much. TV, DVD and an RF remote on your PC is enough to make me buy one...twice.
A town in Mississippi with a notoriously strict mayor has forced some stuff like this. In one case the mayor didn't like the idea of a cell tower, so she ordered it be made into a pine tree. Except it's about 50' taller than the tallest pine tree around and looks more like an overgrown pipe cleaner. It's uglier than a cell tower.
In another case, though, a church wanted to build a steeple too tall for the mayor's liking, so they stuck a cell tower in it and got around it.
True stories.
Somebody pointed out that this may not be practical for electronics because of the overhead needed to sync the two signals. It seems like the most practical use would be in communicating over extremely long distances. Your overhead would be made up in the time you save transmitting the signal. If you could do this, somehow, without the cable, it could reduce lag time between, say, earth and mars.
This idea is long overdue! If media companies would start innovating instead of wasting time trying to beat back hackers, they'd open up a huge market for themselves.
A better pricing scheme, though, would be a subscription. As many movies as you want for $10 - $15/mo. (like a legit Movies88.com) Think about it- would you go to all the trouble of P2P if there was a fairly priced alternative with guaranteed quality? Maybe some would, but the majority of users would get broadband and take the easy route.
Better yet, skip the Congress, FCC, and go straight to the National Guard. Convince them to enforce a distribution of government-issue televisions that only show the "America Channel." Don't let anyone record it, incase something erroneous is shown. Dictate that every citizen watch it for at least 6 hours a day. Children under 12 must watch for 8 hours a day. I love you, Big Brother.
Why is it that the suggested fix is always to bring down the 'haves' instead of finding ways to help the 'have nots' become 'haves'. The 'solution' is always to put an end to businesses and increase government interference. The ultimate result being communism.
More proof this is a crackpot report: Man is much more likely to colonize the seas (you know, the remaining 75% of Earth) than the planets within 50 years. My guess is either NASA or the Communist Party USA sponsered this one....
The epitome of logic: base your presuppositions on a movie!
The illogic here is that by saying "you shouldn't dictate your values," you are dictating one of your values. The liberal mantra "you shouldn't force your values" sounds real caring to say, but it isn't, because 1) it's a logical absurdity, 2) true "caring" involves morality, 3) applied as consistantly as possible, it is anarchy.
For example, it may be "forcing my values on someone" if I stop them from committing suicide. But, nevertheless, it's the "caring" thing to do. Same would go for drug use, murder, and a range of other areas where people "force their values". If you apply it consistantly, you're really saying "no one should tell anyone else what to do." Which would mean anarchy.
The typical reply is, "well, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". Again, this is "forcing values" (ie. the value that people shouldn't hurt someone else). But let's pretend it's not. You still have to furthur qualify it by defining "hurt". Who gets to determine what is hurtful? In making that definition, though, you are essentially coming up with your own "religion", expecting everyone to follow it, and accusing them of intolerance if they don't.
All that to say, liberals have their share of logic problems.
Guess what. We live in a free market economy. Aside from a few (growing) restrictions, you can sell anything to anybody you please. Now if you really have a problem with "big evil companies" selling to your kids, don't let your kids buy. Better yet, teach your kids to be descerning. But if you still have a problem, then don't let them use IM.
The thing to worry about isn't some marketing firm, it's this lady's parenting skills and the anti-capitalists that spew this kind of mess.
Amen. The problem is our move away from a free market economy. If the lawyers and big government kept their mits out of it, the recording industry and artists would have found new ways to make money in file sharing (ads, promo, concerts, value-added services, etc) a long time ago, and everybody would be happy.
The lawyers are pointing out that the (il)logic of outlawing file sharing would apply to ISPs and OS manufacturers too. I think they should also point out that it applies to radio and TV stations, tape recorder and VCR manufacturers, CD Burner makers, cover bands.
I could see it going two ways: they give into the fact that we are a capitalist nation, or FCC (or similar) starts licensing internet bandwidth like they do radio bandwith (which means we will all be forced to "upgrade" to HDSL by 2002 and then to cable by 2003...)
Well, at least you agree that the FCC's actions slip logically into communism.
It's up to the intellectual elite to regulate personal freedoms based on what they think is best? The free market ALWAYS produces the best choice over time, much quicker than any other method. By the time all this HDTV mess gets figured out, technology could have surpassed it 10 times. Windows, even though it sucks, is way past what we'd be running if the government told us which OS to buy. (Just check out the PC at your local government-run facilities if you don't believe me)
Consider:
Public Heath Care vs. Private
Public School vs. Private
Public Transport vs. Personal
USPS vs FedEx
United States vs Soviet Union
Investment Account vs Social Security
Welfare vs Job
The "dumbest choice" is to sit around and let a beuracracy make decisions for individuals and their businesses. It is government's job to protect society and uphold basic human rights. They are horrible at doing anything else.
So why exactly can the FCC legislate which technology consumers and businesses must use? What is wrong with the old fashioned free-market economy? How is this better/worse than regulating content?
IMHO, the FCC should ONLY license bandwith, and not legislate it's use. We have 3 branches of government to handle any REAL decency vs. free speech issues, and a free market to handle the rest.
First, it should be pointed out that any problem inherent to at-home voting via the web already exists with mail-in ballots.
But, just because internet voting at home might not work, doesn't mean internet voting can't work. Presidential elections require a nationwide network. Right now, they use paper & "sneakernet", with lots of sneakers between points. Even if it has drawbacks, the internet is a much more efficient and secure nationwide network. It's just a matter of how to use it. Probably the first step would be to replicate as many of the paper processes as possible.
You could still benefit by replacing those old machines with touch-screen (or voice-activated, or braille, etc.) booths and VPN to a "tally server". Your client could have multiple interfaces, so if someone's too lame to understand the butterfly screen, give them the 'voting wizard' and a dancing paperclip to help out. On the server(s), you'd get near real-time results without media conglomerations swaying results with early "predictions". No chads, no democrats with stacks of punchcards in their car, and best of all, here's your recount:
SELECT COUNT(VOTERID) FROM VOTES WHERE CANDIDATE ='BUSH' AND STATE='FL'
First, I think this could work, and the legal aspect could be skirted. First of all, these could be completely legal when used to swap family pictures or other files via 2GHz or other open frequencies. They would be no different than these mini walkie talkies. Would they knock you down for duct-taping one to your boom box and transmitting that way? So enforcement couldn't just knock you down for transmitting radio waves- they'd have to snoop on what you're transmitting and correlate it with triangulation information, which may be feasible and maybe even legal in an open environment, but certainly not easy. Triangulation could be "spoofed" by having each device randomly sending out fake transmissions. Going around snatching kid's walkmans would be a PR problem if nothing else.
But, one question I have: What are the advantages of this over regular, TCP/IP-based P2P? Or maybe a wireless internet device with P2P client on it. Then you're not limited to a specific area, and can share with a global network. It'd be even harder to triangulate and correlate with content in real-time.
Do your homework
Just like you apparently did in this post. Yes Ma'am.
http://cartalk.cars.com/Mail/Electric/-another good kneejerk reaction
http://michele.usc.edu/105b/electrochemistry/batte ry.html-Problems with using batteries & fuel cells
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/3589/effic iency.html-Maybe Stanley had it right to begin with...
As for the lead acid batteries, almost all are recycled now
Ah, yes they go to that happy, magic place where batteries go in dead and come out alive, and leave absolutely no pollution in the air or water. Again, I'm not saying electric cars and recycling are bad- just there's more to being 'environmentally friendly' than riding around in over-blown PowerWheels.
The new, ecologically aware generation might want to keep in mind that electricity still comes from somewhere, often coal power plants. Depending on the source of electricity, electric cars may actually be less efficient and merely redistribute pollution. Not to mention those lead-acid batteries got to be stored somewhere (such as a landfill or local lake) when they die.
Not saying the internal combustion engine will never go away, just the ecologically aware often aren't as aware as they claim.
Slashdot Mirror
"At that time, the hardware was said to be final, with some minor work left on the accompanying software suite."
Read: the developers were scrambling to get last-minute hacks working. I've bought the past two All-in-wonder cards. It's a great product, but the software, IMHO, is the weak point. A clumsy interface and oddball errors, along with unusually long load-times are a definite downside. Another is the remote software- it only lets you control SOME parts of SOME of the apps. I'd like to see the remote be able to be fully customizeable per application, including non-ATI apps. The Winamp control will be cool, but what about MoodLogic, etc?
Not to complain too much. TV, DVD and an RF remote on your PC is enough to make me buy one...twice.
A town in Mississippi with a notoriously strict mayor has forced some stuff like this. In one case the mayor didn't like the idea of a cell tower, so she ordered it be made into a pine tree. Except it's about 50' taller than the tallest pine tree around and looks more like an overgrown pipe cleaner. It's uglier than a cell tower.
In another case, though, a church wanted to build a steeple too tall for the mayor's liking, so they stuck a cell tower in it and got around it.
True stories.
Somebody pointed out that this may not be practical for electronics because of the overhead needed to sync the two signals. It seems like the most practical use would be in communicating over extremely long distances. Your overhead would be made up in the time you save transmitting the signal. If you could do this, somehow, without the cable, it could reduce lag time between, say, earth and mars.
This idea is long overdue! If media companies would start innovating instead of wasting time trying to beat back hackers, they'd open up a huge market for themselves.
A better pricing scheme, though, would be a subscription. As many movies as you want for $10 - $15/mo. (like a legit Movies88.com) Think about it- would you go to all the trouble of P2P if there was a fairly priced alternative with guaranteed quality? Maybe some would, but the majority of users would get broadband and take the easy route.
I use it and catch about 80-95% with no false positives. There was a slashdot article on this and Razor. As I understand it, it uses a one way hash to identify the message headers, so in addition to filtering the email, it protects personal information such as "who got which spam" or personal emails if they were to be accidently sent. Personally, I'd rather depend on free software to solve the spam problem than let some beuracracy come up with a half-ass (or worse) solution to the problem for millions of taxpayer dollars. Just one more way to depend on big government if you ask me....
Take 'em to lunch because they'll need it after chunking out a few thou for a machine that is comparable to your $600 PC...
Better yet, skip the Congress, FCC, and go straight to the National Guard. Convince them to enforce a distribution of government-issue televisions that only show the "America Channel." Don't let anyone record it, incase something erroneous is shown. Dictate that every citizen watch it for at least 6 hours a day. Children under 12 must watch for 8 hours a day. I love you, Big Brother.
Well, then how come they can only handle one mouse button?
Why is it that the suggested fix is always to bring down the 'haves' instead of finding ways to help the 'have nots' become 'haves'. The 'solution' is always to put an end to businesses and increase government interference. The ultimate result being communism.
More proof this is a crackpot report: Man is much more likely to colonize the seas (you know, the remaining 75% of Earth) than the planets within 50 years. My guess is either NASA or the Communist Party USA sponsered this one....
Unfortunately, the whole affair came to an abrupt end today when some bigger, more popular computers beat up the nerdy chess computers.
The epitome of logic: base your presuppositions on a movie!
The illogic here is that by saying "you shouldn't dictate your values," you are dictating one of your values. The liberal mantra "you shouldn't force your values" sounds real caring to say, but it isn't, because 1) it's a logical absurdity, 2) true "caring" involves morality, 3) applied as consistantly as possible, it is anarchy.
For example, it may be "forcing my values on someone" if I stop them from committing suicide. But, nevertheless, it's the "caring" thing to do. Same would go for drug use, murder, and a range of other areas where people "force their values". If you apply it consistantly, you're really saying "no one should tell anyone else what to do." Which would mean anarchy.
The typical reply is, "well, people should be allowed to do whatever they want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone". Again, this is "forcing values" (ie. the value that people shouldn't hurt someone else). But let's pretend it's not. You still have to furthur qualify it by defining "hurt". Who gets to determine what is hurtful? In making that definition, though, you are essentially coming up with your own "religion", expecting everyone to follow it, and accusing them of intolerance if they don't.
All that to say, liberals have their share of logic problems.
Guess what. We live in a free market economy. Aside from a few (growing) restrictions, you can sell anything to anybody you please. Now if you really have a problem with "big evil companies" selling to your kids, don't let your kids buy. Better yet, teach your kids to be descerning. But if you still have a problem, then don't let them use IM. The thing to worry about isn't some marketing firm, it's this lady's parenting skills and the anti-capitalists that spew this kind of mess.
Amen. The problem is our move away from a free market economy. If the lawyers and big government kept their mits out of it, the recording industry and artists would have found new ways to make money in file sharing (ads, promo, concerts, value-added services, etc) a long time ago, and everybody would be happy. The lawyers are pointing out that the (il)logic of outlawing file sharing would apply to ISPs and OS manufacturers too. I think they should also point out that it applies to radio and TV stations, tape recorder and VCR manufacturers, CD Burner makers, cover bands.
I could see it going two ways: they give into the fact that we are a capitalist nation, or FCC (or similar) starts licensing internet bandwidth like they do radio bandwith (which means we will all be forced to "upgrade" to HDSL by 2002 and then to cable by 2003...)
...as a giant hampster wheel.
Well, at least you agree that the FCC's actions slip logically into communism. It's up to the intellectual elite to regulate personal freedoms based on what they think is best? The free market ALWAYS produces the best choice over time, much quicker than any other method. By the time all this HDTV mess gets figured out, technology could have surpassed it 10 times. Windows, even though it sucks, is way past what we'd be running if the government told us which OS to buy. (Just check out the PC at your local government-run facilities if you don't believe me) Consider: Public Heath Care vs. Private Public School vs. Private Public Transport vs. Personal USPS vs FedEx United States vs Soviet Union Investment Account vs Social Security Welfare vs Job The "dumbest choice" is to sit around and let a beuracracy make decisions for individuals and their businesses. It is government's job to protect society and uphold basic human rights. They are horrible at doing anything else.
So why exactly can the FCC legislate which technology consumers and businesses must use? What is wrong with the old fashioned free-market economy? How is this better/worse than regulating content? IMHO, the FCC should ONLY license bandwith, and not legislate it's use. We have 3 branches of government to handle any REAL decency vs. free speech issues, and a free market to handle the rest.
First, it should be pointed out that any problem inherent to at-home voting via the web already exists with mail-in ballots.
But, just because internet voting at home might not work, doesn't mean internet voting can't work. Presidential elections require a nationwide network. Right now, they use paper & "sneakernet", with lots of sneakers between points. Even if it has drawbacks, the internet is a much more efficient and secure nationwide network. It's just a matter of how to use it. Probably the first step would be to replicate as many of the paper processes as possible.
You could still benefit by replacing those old machines with touch-screen (or voice-activated, or braille, etc.) booths and VPN to a "tally server". Your client could have multiple interfaces, so if someone's too lame to understand the butterfly screen, give them the 'voting wizard' and a dancing paperclip to help out. On the server(s), you'd get near real-time results without media conglomerations swaying results with early "predictions". No chads, no democrats with stacks of punchcards in their car, and best of all, here's your recount:
SELECT COUNT(VOTERID) FROM VOTES WHERE CANDIDATE ='BUSH' AND STATE='FL'
First, I think this could work, and the legal aspect could be skirted. First of all, these could be completely legal when used to swap family pictures or other files via 2GHz or other open frequencies. They would be no different than these mini walkie talkies. Would they knock you down for duct-taping one to your boom box and transmitting that way? So enforcement couldn't just knock you down for transmitting radio waves- they'd have to snoop on what you're transmitting and correlate it with triangulation information, which may be feasible and maybe even legal in an open environment, but certainly not easy. Triangulation could be "spoofed" by having each device randomly sending out fake transmissions. Going around snatching kid's walkmans would be a PR problem if nothing else. But, one question I have: What are the advantages of this over regular, TCP/IP-based P2P? Or maybe a wireless internet device with P2P client on it. Then you're not limited to a specific area, and can share with a global network. It'd be even harder to triangulate and correlate with content in real-time.
Here's some more 'homework' on recycling lead: http://www.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/01/28/lead.to wn/index.html
Do your homework Just like you apparently did in this post. Yes Ma'am. http://cartalk.cars.com/Mail/Electric/-another good kneejerk reaction http://michele.usc.edu/105b/electrochemistry/batte ry.html-Problems with using batteries & fuel cells
http://www.geocities.com/MotorCity/Shop/3589/effic iency.html-Maybe Stanley had it right to begin with...
As for the lead acid batteries, almost all are recycled now
Ah, yes they go to that happy, magic place where batteries go in dead and come out alive, and leave absolutely no pollution in the air or water. Again, I'm not saying electric cars and recycling are bad- just there's more to being 'environmentally friendly' than riding around in over-blown PowerWheels.
The new, ecologically aware generation might want to keep in mind that electricity still comes from somewhere, often coal power plants. Depending on the source of electricity, electric cars may actually be less efficient and merely redistribute pollution. Not to mention those lead-acid batteries got to be stored somewhere (such as a landfill or local lake) when they die. Not saying the internal combustion engine will never go away, just the ecologically aware often aren't as aware as they claim.
You may call them nanobots, I call them fish bait.