And you're posting as an anonymous coward. So what's that make you?
It's been proven - OVER AND OVER AND OVER - that prison is NOT a deterrant. It's not. "Period."
Because what does every single criminal think when they perform their crimes? "I won't get caught."
If prison and death penalties was an effective deterrant - why are there SO MANY PEOPLE in our prisons, and SO MANY PEOPLE getting murdered every year?
You actually think the criminal justice system has been "pussified"? I guess you haven't gotten in trouble for anything, like, ever. Because they hand out sentences like they were peices of candy in a doctor's office.
You, sir, are the moron - get your head our of your ass and use your god given brain for once.
You assume, incorrectly, that I mean there should just be a small fine and set them free.
There's lots of options for punishing people without dropping them in a prison cell. You can strap tracking devices to them, you can restrict their movements, you can force them to do community service, you can enforce fines to be taken from their paychecks, etc, etc.
Seems 15,000 people dying from poison gas is pretty violent to me. No? I mean, people died.
Yea, so there's the Car thing. I think car thieves suck, but again, it's just property. Locking someone up for decades doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
You seem to think that people should be locked up for behaving in a certain way - because that behavior is a "gateway" to other crimes? Such a tired argument..
Yes, these people should be punished. But I agree with Spain's prison/court system when they say that prison is for violent crime.
There's other ways to punish people and have them be productive to society, instead of rotting in prison. Sure, there may be special cases, but for the most part if you're not a physical danger to people then there's no need to keep you separated from the population.
Eh, wireless. Good for surfing, not good for pulling down any serious megabytes.
Those transceivers are only $60 on ebay. By the time you get a wireless N router and wireless N cards to go with it (the routers are cheap but the cards aren't) you'll have spent just as much just to hook up two of those things - one at the internet hookup and one in the remote room you want to connect at. Then just use a cheap switch.
It all depends on the particular situation. For me, neither the coax nor Wireless-N are fast enough. It really has to be GigE.
I have a 35/35 FIOS connection, so unless you're right next to the wireless router, then G won't be fast enough (and you might as well just plug in to it) and with N I'd need to purchase cards. Almost everything has GigE ports now, and it makes a big difference for anything but general web surfing or playing MP3's from your media server.
Even cheapo Gig switches now are good enough to push 90MB/s if you're talking about just yourself or maybe a family's traffic. I have an 8-port D-Link GigE switch that does LAN and iSCSI traffic without breaking a sweat between my three servers. I run several VM's on these machines including Exchange, DFS-R, etc.
Well one thing I plan to do at some point is to ditch the Verizon router (which actually isn't too bad, but eh) and have the Ethernet port on my box downstairs enabled so I can use a real firewall. Then, I'll get one of these NIM100's to bridge that for the cable boxes.
For me, I'll run Cat5E or 6 to everywhere I have an Ethernet enabled device.
Yea that's the one. There's an auction for them for $60 each on ebay right now.
You wouldn't need to buy a lot of them; the guy could plug one in where the Internet comes in, and another one in the remote location. He could then plug it in to a Wireless router that could service the area are reasonable speeds - rather than try to pick up the signal from the other side of the house.
Personally, I've had no problems running 10BASE-2 using 50 ohm terminators on Cable TV wire (usually RG-6 but I've used plenty of RG-59 with good results.) Sure, I haven't tried to make a 500 foot run or anything, but from the basement to the second floor I've had good results.
When I used to live at home, this is how I got Internet up to my mother's room on the second floor from the internet hookup in the basement.
YMMV, but if you just want to provide internet, dusting off an old 10BASE-2 hub with some RJ-45 ports at each end is a good way to do it. You'll never get better than 10Mbit, so maybe not good for streaming high bit-rate movies, though.
Yes, in fact you can use the Verizon FIOS wireless router for bridging Coax to Ethernet. My cable boxes get IP addresses from my Windows DHCP server and download the On-Demand through my Linux-based router, all through the FIOS bridge router.
Before FIOS used the full routers standard, they use a Coax transciever and you can pick them up for about $100, sometimes cheaper, for 100Mbit over existing Coax.
Yea, the magnetic cable is a cool thing. It's probably more resilient to plugging and unplugging, too. On a normal style power adapter, the act of replugging the cable a lot, and when the wire gets tugged, sometimes loosens the solder on the board and makes a mess of things.
I think the Macbook Pro is a really nice machine but I really wish it had a docking port. My last two jobs had notebooks with docking ports and I had a docking station at home and at my office. Made things really easy. Easy to work from home, less to lug around, etc. I don't know why Apple is so resistant to being corporate friendly. They do it with their notebooks and they do it with the iPhone. They also don't have very good tools for managing Macs on a corporate network.
I didn't say separate buses for every peripheral. USB works fine for all of those low-speed devices. I do like to have a serial port, but the USB-to-Serial adapters work well.
I don't own a web cam nor would I ever buy a monitor with one built-in. I wouldn't NOT buy a notebook PC because of one but I'd never pay extra for it.
I don't know anyone that likes to use them. Maybe it's my age group (late 20's, early 30's) and maybe the kids love them, but I absolutely do not.
Anyhow, I see merit to this, yes, but I don't think it's worth it. Who cares if you have to run another 50 cent USB cable.
Unless you want a keyboard in yours hands all night, you'll still need a remote control. And while there's certainly merit to being able to control a TV's settings over a wire, nearly each and every TV is different - even the same model - and will require it's own unique settings.
Well sure, Apple doesn't care about any of that going obsolete. You'll just throw it all away and buy new stuff anyway.
I like separate wires for separate buses. When USB 3.0 comes out I don't want to be limited to 2.0 because of my cable. I don't want to be limited to any of the individual parts. I want to be able to upgrade one part and move on.
I don't love convergence devices, either. Yes, I like that my phone can do GPS. It's great in a pinch. But I don't want to use it as my only GPS device. I want one in my car too because it works a whole lot better and has a much better screen and speaker. I like that I can watch movies on my iPod but that doesn't replace DVD's or my media server with HD movies on it.
Convergence devices usually give you the least of all worlds (and maybe the best of one) and the same is true with these kinds of things.
When I need multi monitor support I can just connect two HDMI cables, or three, or four. OMG I have to run another cable - TO HUMANITY!
I don't know how you'd need to have more than two or three displays unless it's for a special use system that will be a one-off anyhow. AMD Demo'd some multi-display setups recently with HDMI.
Dual-link HDMI can do very high resolution.
It's fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Let's stick with HDMI, kk thx~
So... Let's move all the ports out of the computer itself into yet another box that all your cables will plug in to?
The only advantage I see with Displayport is for Notebooks, so that a Docking Station is less required, but then DisplayPort would need to also supply power going the other direction.
If you have to attach more than one cable to your notebook, it sucks. It might not seem like a big deal but when you are constantly setting up your notebook all day (because you take it home, take it to meetings, etc) it's a bitch.
I agree completely, and was thinking the same thing. OK, so multiple monitors.. OK.. More bandwidth, good idea.. Wait - USB, sound and Ethernet? WTH?
They might just rename it to "ComplicatePort."
I don't even like that HDMI has sound as part of the signal but at least Video and Audio almost always go hand-in-hand in the home entertainment space so that makes sense. But we don't need it to do USB and Ethernet and whatever else they try to cram through it.
That's what I was thinking. I mean, basically they'd be lying to the concerned party by saying "Ohh, this isn't the OPEN SOURCE software you're afraid of." Even though it's the same code.
The only reason I see it being an issue for a company is if it's GPL code and they don't want to deal with the GPL, but if they're too lazy to read the BSD license (or already know what it is for goodness sakes) then I guess shame on them.
Obviously if you wrote the code you can provide a "closed source" or closed license version of it if you want to. Of course, if anyone else has contributed to it, then that changes things a little bit.
They already make wireless shutter glasses. Shutter glasses are really the only way to do it at home at reasonable prices. They DO work, and if done properly they can come close to matching the 3D quality of the theater.
I really love 3D and I hope more and more trends toward 3D keep coming. I don't want it to fizzle out! It's not just a gimmick. When you watch a film in 3D you get a much better sense of scale and you can somehow absorb a lot more detail. You just SEE things more clearly. I love it.
Are you kidding? Five years ago I purchased my 52" Sharp LCD TV for $4000. You can get a much better 52" LCD TV now for $1400. Or you could get a cheap 52" screen (with picture quality about the same as my then-premium Sharp) for less than a grand.
That's pretty significant, I think.
30" high density computer displays are still very expensive.
Shutter glasses over a reasonable compromise. Lightweight wireless shutter glasses with high refresh rates on newer TV's can be a good compromise between polarization and blue/red glasses.
I remember using shutter glasses 10 years ago with my old 21" CRT and a driver that converted almost any D3D game to 3D using the glasses and interlaced frames. It was awesome. When LCD's took over, they couldn't refresh fast enough and so the technology basically stalled.
Now, with super fast response times from new LCD, DLP and Plasma screens, and MUCH more powerful hardware, we can do full frame alternating eye at 120Hz with shutter glasses and get really great results.
I look forward to seeing more 3D, I've been waiting for a long time.
People are worried about privacy in the age of information warehousing. I think it's a perfectly reasonable fear. So much of our society and laws and punishments are based around the fact that you could still live your life if you made a mistake. With information so easily accessable, this can change very quickly.
So let's say you had a few too many drinks one night and got busted for drunk driving. Yea, a dumb mistake, but it's something we've ALL done - most of us just never got caught. So you go to court, you plea out and you get a slap on the wrist for a first offense. You won't do it again. The information is public record, but in the past someone would have to seek out that information to find it. Go to the public records building. You weren't likely to have it come back to bite you.
But with information so accessable, now any future employer could find that out with a click of the mouse and deny you jobs, or deny you credit, or deny you membership to the damned gym. Health care insurance could jack up your rates.
With no control over how long that data is held in the system and who can access it, you're screwed. It's like "credit" but worse, because it includes your entire life - not just if you pay your bills on time.
It might sound far fetched but it's really not that far away from becoming a reality.
I believe people can make mistakes in their lives and still be good people. Our legal system is supposed to be based around this principal. You do something dumb, get caught, pay the penalties and then get on with your life. These days, it's looking more and more like anything you do(even something as simple as searched for porn on the internet) could potentially follow you for the rest of your life.
It's not a reality yet, but it could easily be and I think people should be aware of it, and be cautious.
Yea, I agree. And what I think people fail to understand (based on some of the other comments I've seen here today) is that Google doesn't really have any custom hardware at all. They run x86 boxes and lots of them. They designed the system that way so that it would be cheaper.
So, if they opened their search engine tech other people could make use of it on a smaller scale. However, Google doesn't want to do anything like that against its' own products. It just wants everyone else to.
Not saying Google is a particularly bad company, but they have their finger on so much data so we should always keep a watchful eye on them. I don't trust any organization we can't directly influence or control. We never should.
PS. Ye, I use the site feature sometimes. And there's a few URL's you can use such as google.com/microsoft which search Microsoft sites.
Well, perhaps. But Google's search is still better than anything Microsoft puts out. I consistently get shit results from Bing. When I want to search Microsoft's site for something, I use Google.
And Google still has an uncluttered start page.
You know what's funny is that 90% of the time when I do search Google for something, I end up clicking the Wikipedia link anyway. Wikipedia should start their own Search service that will include "not only Wikipedia, but other sites too" and it would be a massive success.
Slashdot Mirror
And you're posting as an anonymous coward. So what's that make you?
It's been proven - OVER AND OVER AND OVER - that prison is NOT a deterrant. It's not. "Period."
Because what does every single criminal think when they perform their crimes? "I won't get caught."
If prison and death penalties was an effective deterrant - why are there SO MANY PEOPLE in our prisons, and SO MANY PEOPLE getting murdered every year?
You actually think the criminal justice system has been "pussified"? I guess you haven't gotten in trouble for anything, like, ever. Because they hand out sentences like they were peices of candy in a doctor's office.
You, sir, are the moron - get your head our of your ass and use your god given brain for once.
You assume, incorrectly, that I mean there should just be a small fine and set them free.
There's lots of options for punishing people without dropping them in a prison cell. You can strap tracking devices to them, you can restrict their movements, you can force them to do community service, you can enforce fines to be taken from their paychecks, etc, etc.
Seems 15,000 people dying from poison gas is pretty violent to me. No? I mean, people died.
Yea, so there's the Car thing. I think car thieves suck, but again, it's just property. Locking someone up for decades doesn't seem to make any sense to me.
You seem to think that people should be locked up for behaving in a certain way - because that behavior is a "gateway" to other crimes? Such a tired argument..
Yes, these people should be punished. But I agree with Spain's prison/court system when they say that prison is for violent crime.
There's other ways to punish people and have them be productive to society, instead of rotting in prison. Sure, there may be special cases, but for the most part if you're not a physical danger to people then there's no need to keep you separated from the population.
Eh, wireless. Good for surfing, not good for pulling down any serious megabytes.
Those transceivers are only $60 on ebay. By the time you get a wireless N router and wireless N cards to go with it (the routers are cheap but the cards aren't) you'll have spent just as much just to hook up two of those things - one at the internet hookup and one in the remote room you want to connect at. Then just use a cheap switch.
It all depends on the particular situation. For me, neither the coax nor Wireless-N are fast enough. It really has to be GigE.
I have a 35/35 FIOS connection, so unless you're right next to the wireless router, then G won't be fast enough (and you might as well just plug in to it) and with N I'd need to purchase cards. Almost everything has GigE ports now, and it makes a big difference for anything but general web surfing or playing MP3's from your media server.
Even cheapo Gig switches now are good enough to push 90MB/s if you're talking about just yourself or maybe a family's traffic. I have an 8-port D-Link GigE switch that does LAN and iSCSI traffic without breaking a sweat between my three servers. I run several VM's on these machines including Exchange, DFS-R, etc.
Well one thing I plan to do at some point is to ditch the Verizon router (which actually isn't too bad, but eh) and have the Ethernet port on my box downstairs enabled so I can use a real firewall. Then, I'll get one of these NIM100's to bridge that for the cable boxes.
For me, I'll run Cat5E or 6 to everywhere I have an Ethernet enabled device.
Yea, well they were all talking about yards, and I did the switcharoo over to feet.
Yea that's the one. There's an auction for them for $60 each on ebay right now.
You wouldn't need to buy a lot of them; the guy could plug one in where the Internet comes in, and another one in the remote location. He could then plug it in to a Wireless router that could service the area are reasonable speeds - rather than try to pick up the signal from the other side of the house.
Personally, I've had no problems running 10BASE-2 using 50 ohm terminators on Cable TV wire (usually RG-6 but I've used plenty of RG-59 with good results.) Sure, I haven't tried to make a 500 foot run or anything, but from the basement to the second floor I've had good results.
When I used to live at home, this is how I got Internet up to my mother's room on the second floor from the internet hookup in the basement.
YMMV, but if you just want to provide internet, dusting off an old 10BASE-2 hub with some RJ-45 ports at each end is a good way to do it. You'll never get better than 10Mbit, so maybe not good for streaming high bit-rate movies, though.
Yes, in fact you can use the Verizon FIOS wireless router for bridging Coax to Ethernet. My cable boxes get IP addresses from my Windows DHCP server and download the On-Demand through my Linux-based router, all through the FIOS bridge router.
Before FIOS used the full routers standard, they use a Coax transciever and you can pick them up for about $100, sometimes cheaper, for 100Mbit over existing Coax.
Yea, the magnetic cable is a cool thing. It's probably more resilient to plugging and unplugging, too. On a normal style power adapter, the act of replugging the cable a lot, and when the wire gets tugged, sometimes loosens the solder on the board and makes a mess of things.
I think the Macbook Pro is a really nice machine but I really wish it had a docking port. My last two jobs had notebooks with docking ports and I had a docking station at home and at my office. Made things really easy. Easy to work from home, less to lug around, etc. I don't know why Apple is so resistant to being corporate friendly. They do it with their notebooks and they do it with the iPhone. They also don't have very good tools for managing Macs on a corporate network.
Oh well. Apple will be Apple.
I didn't say separate buses for every peripheral. USB works fine for all of those low-speed devices. I do like to have a serial port, but the USB-to-Serial adapters work well.
I don't own a web cam nor would I ever buy a monitor with one built-in. I wouldn't NOT buy a notebook PC because of one but I'd never pay extra for it.
I don't know anyone that likes to use them. Maybe it's my age group (late 20's, early 30's) and maybe the kids love them, but I absolutely do not.
Anyhow, I see merit to this, yes, but I don't think it's worth it. Who cares if you have to run another 50 cent USB cable.
Unless you want a keyboard in yours hands all night, you'll still need a remote control. And while there's certainly merit to being able to control a TV's settings over a wire, nearly each and every TV is different - even the same model - and will require it's own unique settings.
The complexity doesn't seem worth it.
Well sure, Apple doesn't care about any of that going obsolete. You'll just throw it all away and buy new stuff anyway.
I like separate wires for separate buses. When USB 3.0 comes out I don't want to be limited to 2.0 because of my cable. I don't want to be limited to any of the individual parts. I want to be able to upgrade one part and move on.
I don't love convergence devices, either. Yes, I like that my phone can do GPS. It's great in a pinch. But I don't want to use it as my only GPS device. I want one in my car too because it works a whole lot better and has a much better screen and speaker. I like that I can watch movies on my iPod but that doesn't replace DVD's or my media server with HD movies on it.
Convergence devices usually give you the least of all worlds (and maybe the best of one) and the same is true with these kinds of things.
When I need multi monitor support I can just connect two HDMI cables, or three, or four. OMG I have to run another cable - TO HUMANITY!
I don't know how you'd need to have more than two or three displays unless it's for a special use system that will be a one-off anyhow. AMD Demo'd some multi-display setups recently with HDMI.
Dual-link HDMI can do very high resolution.
It's fixing a problem that doesn't exist. Let's stick with HDMI, kk thx~
So... Let's move all the ports out of the computer itself into yet another box that all your cables will plug in to?
The only advantage I see with Displayport is for Notebooks, so that a Docking Station is less required, but then DisplayPort would need to also supply power going the other direction.
If you have to attach more than one cable to your notebook, it sucks. It might not seem like a big deal but when you are constantly setting up your notebook all day (because you take it home, take it to meetings, etc) it's a bitch.
I agree completely, and was thinking the same thing. OK, so multiple monitors.. OK.. More bandwidth, good idea.. Wait - USB, sound and Ethernet? WTH?
They might just rename it to "ComplicatePort."
I don't even like that HDMI has sound as part of the signal but at least Video and Audio almost always go hand-in-hand in the home entertainment space so that makes sense. But we don't need it to do USB and Ethernet and whatever else they try to cram through it.
If they can't deal with a BSD license, then they definately would have a problem with a CC license.
That's what I was thinking. I mean, basically they'd be lying to the concerned party by saying "Ohh, this isn't the OPEN SOURCE software you're afraid of." Even though it's the same code.
The only reason I see it being an issue for a company is if it's GPL code and they don't want to deal with the GPL, but if they're too lazy to read the BSD license (or already know what it is for goodness sakes) then I guess shame on them.
Obviously if you wrote the code you can provide a "closed source" or closed license version of it if you want to. Of course, if anyone else has contributed to it, then that changes things a little bit.
They already make wireless shutter glasses. Shutter glasses are really the only way to do it at home at reasonable prices. They DO work, and if done properly they can come close to matching the 3D quality of the theater.
I really love 3D and I hope more and more trends toward 3D keep coming. I don't want it to fizzle out! It's not just a gimmick. When you watch a film in 3D you get a much better sense of scale and you can somehow absorb a lot more detail. You just SEE things more clearly. I love it.
Are you kidding? Five years ago I purchased my 52" Sharp LCD TV for $4000. You can get a much better 52" LCD TV now for $1400. Or you could get a cheap 52" screen (with picture quality about the same as my then-premium Sharp) for less than a grand.
That's pretty significant, I think.
30" high density computer displays are still very expensive.
Shutter glasses over a reasonable compromise. Lightweight wireless shutter glasses with high refresh rates on newer TV's can be a good compromise between polarization and blue/red glasses.
I remember using shutter glasses 10 years ago with my old 21" CRT and a driver that converted almost any D3D game to 3D using the glasses and interlaced frames. It was awesome. When LCD's took over, they couldn't refresh fast enough and so the technology basically stalled.
Now, with super fast response times from new LCD, DLP and Plasma screens, and MUCH more powerful hardware, we can do full frame alternating eye at 120Hz with shutter glasses and get really great results.
I look forward to seeing more 3D, I've been waiting for a long time.
Yea, it was a pretty douchebag remark, huh?
People are worried about privacy in the age of information warehousing. I think it's a perfectly reasonable fear. So much of our society and laws and punishments are based around the fact that you could still live your life if you made a mistake. With information so easily accessable, this can change very quickly.
So let's say you had a few too many drinks one night and got busted for drunk driving. Yea, a dumb mistake, but it's something we've ALL done - most of us just never got caught. So you go to court, you plea out and you get a slap on the wrist for a first offense. You won't do it again. The information is public record, but in the past someone would have to seek out that information to find it. Go to the public records building. You weren't likely to have it come back to bite you.
But with information so accessable, now any future employer could find that out with a click of the mouse and deny you jobs, or deny you credit, or deny you membership to the damned gym. Health care insurance could jack up your rates.
With no control over how long that data is held in the system and who can access it, you're screwed. It's like "credit" but worse, because it includes your entire life - not just if you pay your bills on time.
It might sound far fetched but it's really not that far away from becoming a reality.
I believe people can make mistakes in their lives and still be good people. Our legal system is supposed to be based around this principal. You do something dumb, get caught, pay the penalties and then get on with your life. These days, it's looking more and more like anything you do(even something as simple as searched for porn on the internet) could potentially follow you for the rest of your life.
It's not a reality yet, but it could easily be and I think people should be aware of it, and be cautious.
Yea, I agree. And what I think people fail to understand (based on some of the other comments I've seen here today) is that Google doesn't really have any custom hardware at all. They run x86 boxes and lots of them. They designed the system that way so that it would be cheaper.
So, if they opened their search engine tech other people could make use of it on a smaller scale. However, Google doesn't want to do anything like that against its' own products. It just wants everyone else to.
Not saying Google is a particularly bad company, but they have their finger on so much data so we should always keep a watchful eye on them. I don't trust any organization we can't directly influence or control. We never should.
PS. Ye, I use the site feature sometimes. And there's a few URL's you can use such as google.com/microsoft which search Microsoft sites.
Well, perhaps. But Google's search is still better than anything Microsoft puts out. I consistently get shit results from Bing. When I want to search Microsoft's site for something, I use Google.
And Google still has an uncluttered start page.
You know what's funny is that 90% of the time when I do search Google for something, I end up clicking the Wikipedia link anyway. Wikipedia should start their own Search service that will include "not only Wikipedia, but other sites too" and it would be a massive success.