The matter in a black hole should be condensed down to a point. The event horizon is what would be many times as large as our solar system.
Some theories, including string theory, prevent the collapse to a point. But whatever a black hole is, the event horizon of the reported hole cannot be that large for the expected mass. It's just way, way out of scale for a black hole with a reported mass between 2.6 and 3.7 million times that of the sun.
I'm not quite sure that argument would hold up, since publishing on the web is distributing (at least from the author to the ftp upload site) although I am willing to listen if you know more.
I think a better way that Dr. Peters could have stated his point is that Microsoft is reselling and redistributing the code they take from other places (and they have been taking code, without the original author's knowledge, for years) while SourceForce, AFAIK, uses the code for it's own purposes, but doesn't make the programs they produce with it available for others to download and reuse. As such, by my understanding they comply with the GPL, while M$ certainly does not.
It is irrelevant what the intended use for the chip is. If it contains any Microsoft code then it's not legally saleable. That's the bottom line.
While this is a strong point, there would be viable ways around it. After all, each box the mod chip is installed in aready has the needed code. Rather than make a copy of xbox code, a mod chip should simply copy the existing code at boot time and then make the needed adjustments (patches). Unfortunately, that still leaves the DMCA to deal with even if you go to the trouble to make a chip with no M$ code.
If you had the skill to build your own chip that does everything the exisiting one does, in a clean room way, you could just as easily leave the copy protection code intact, and still make it capable of running Linux I bet. And you'd have a much better legal leg to stand on, in the process.
I have to differ with this conclusion. If one were to completely "clear room" a mod chip, building an entirely new BIOS from scratch, you certainly could not "leave the copy protection code intact", you couldn't have it at all. And the DCMA would make it illegal to understand the copy protection mechanism well enough to duplicate it, as you had to in some way reverse engineer it to duplicate it!
The problem is pretty clear - they are working to restore a routing anomaly rather than correcting the ones they still have. I would tell them that if they continue to restore anomalies things will only get wrose, but I can't get through to them.
This seems to do nothing about the real problem, which as I see it is the patent office granting patents to things that are not patent worthy (one click buying comes to mind, although there are many many others).
I'm not sure raising fees will cut down on such frivolous patents, if anything it might increase them, as it makes the patent office a nice profit in issuing each patent (since there are many fees beyond the application fee that they only get if they grant a patent).
I'm sure they provide an SDK so you can write your own demod if you don't like the one you are willing ot pay for.
You can be sure of it if you want, but since I saw absolutely no mention of it on their webpages I'm just as sure it's not available. And I see no reason to try to track down the price on this thing. Maybe it isn't ready yet, so what? They could at least give a suggested retail price or a "less than $xxx" price. If they can't do that then the rest of the advertisement (and that's clearly what it is) is a waste of my time. The real insult is that they want me to give my e-mail address and sign up to be perpetually spammed by them, but can't give me the basic information to see if this thing is an incredible bargain or an overpriced hack.
I visited the site (at least it's not slashdoted), but I have no interest in this hack. Here are my complaints:
I wasted time looking at their site, but s far as I could tell they don't want to tell me the price on the thing. If the price is listed anywhere it is certainly not easy to find, even a targeted price range. Do they think I'm so hard up to have this that I'll tell them I want it even if they will not tell the price?
While they don't seem to want to tell the price, they did mention that there will be a standard software demodulator and an optional "Professional demodulator". And more demodulators later. They don't say what the professional demodulator will cost, but as it is optional it certainly will cost. So why would I want to buy their stuff and have crippled non-professional software? And on top of that they know the professional modulator can be replaced with something else in the future that will obviously cost me more money!
OK, I know it costs money to develop software, but in this case when the software is tightly tied to their hardware, I want a company that sells me the hardware and then supports me, not one that tries to bleed me dry, even delivering less than professional software with the basic package and then asking if I want the good software! Of course I want the good software. What I want even more is good open source software, or even hardware interface specs so that I can roll my own. But that is hardly likely to be forthcoming from a company that looks at their hardware customers as cash cows for their software.
There are other issues as well, the inside of a PC is hardly the best environment for a RF receiver. But I might be willing to experiment with this hardware if it was sold with decent software without a bait and switch approach, and the company was more open about things like the prices and the hardware interface.
jet? We don't need no stinkin' jet
on
Skydriving
·
· Score: 2
drop your car out of a cargo jet
Here I was all excited about getting dropped out of a jet and I see the plane has props.
No. It's another good thing that can be done, but it's not what I'm advocating. Basically he has set up a mail server expecting to get mail for his own addresses. He then wastes as much time as he can of the open relay the spammer is using. This at least slows things down for the spammer, and he might just get the attention of someone in charge of the server. Aother good thing to do, I think we need to do lots of things like this to stay ahead of the spammers. The dummy open relay would be another but different tool. Rather than slow down the conection it should take as much spam as it can, so that it doesn't go elsewhere and so that the paying client of the spammer would eventually see that he is getting no results.
> Sadly, unless you are an ISP or other mail service provider, filtering does nothing
Oh, I don't think that's fair statement. What if I'm a company and I have 1000 employees all recieving email.....
..... like I do for my 1200 users I have to deal with.
If you are providing mail for 1200 users then I certainly would include you in the "service provider" group that I mentioned. I'm glad to see you doing it. I don't discount the technology, I wished my ISP used it, and more importantly I wish my forwarding service used it before it counted spam against my quota.
Another advantage to false news servers that would just be used by spammers: As the technology evolved I would envision that a network of such decoy relays could build up information that could be provided instantly to the service providers quickly to help make their filters more accurate and responsive.
Apparently they are getting
some other script writer to finish off Douglas Adams final installment
This makes no sense at all. How many book do they intend to span with the first movie? I would think they would have a hard time doing justice to even the first book in a single movie. If they are going to get to the final book it will be a disaster. There is certainly no reason to do anything with the final book until after they see if the first movie is a hit.
Another problem is that spammers might start automatically sending the same spams to the same lists via several different open relays. Thus, we might increase the volume of spam, at least in the early stages.
I doubt that there are many spammers out there who are not using all of their available bandwidth to send spam already, I can't see how setting up dummy port 23's would make spam worse. Just the opposite: While this can be started by a few changes to an open source mail server, or maybe even by misconfiguring an existing mail server, it should grow and evolve. I think we can beat the spammers, but not just by being impressed on how well we can filter our own mail. Heck, as they add smarts, we could add smarts too. If we can identify the test messages with reasonable certainty we can elect to send them through. We could even build a nice P2P network of systems cooperating to stay one step ahead of the spammers.
Can anyone get us started on this? Provide some Windows and/or Linux code to start the roach motel e-mail server (spammers log in but they don't send out)? I'll get one running tonight if I can get a good dummy mail server for Windows (and just slightly longer to put the hardware together if I have to build up a Linux system).
As I mentioned (in a post that sadly was sent before being previewed), I can open my port 23 on my system and get
several hits in a night for people trying to find a open relay server. Maybe they do look to the blacklists, since some of
the mail on a blacklisted server still gets through, but they are spending a lot of time to find those open relay servers in
the first place. If you're on the Internet, open a mail server (real or not) and it will be found the first day. I'm
suggesting we make it much harder for the spammers to find a real open relay server - by giving them lots of decoy
servers that will at a minimum cost them a lot of time and at best might even receive their bulk spamming rather than
a real open relay.
Interesting idea, but easy to verify. Send one thousand emails, and include a verifiable email in it. Check the email a few hours later - if it's not there, then don't use the relay.
Sure, they might test it. Still seems better than doing nothing. If a spammer passes me 1000 pieces of mail and waits a few hours, that's 999 pieces that didn't go out and a few hours of his time. If only I do this it will have little impact, but if the slashdot effect kicked in and there were so many false servers that it kept happening to him over and over again, that would be sweet!
And of course, some spammers will be lazy and not test. Jackpot!
Of course, the servers should look different. Some Linux, some Windows, some something else. Claim to be different applications. We might even start building smarts into the servers (if you get only one email, and it's going to an address that is likely a test address (his own domain, a mailbox service like Hotmail, or a local ISP that serves the same area his packets came from), wait one minute and then send it on. Worst that can happen is your false relay gets blacklisted (not a problem).
The bottom line is, which will have any impact on spammers, a lot of false relays out there that discard their e-mail destined for victims that keep the system going, or filtering e-mail that you were never going to read anyway?
You might do better to send out a spam, then murder all the buyers once you get their address. Intellectual cleansing.
I've often wondered why we don't see a few spammer's heads on pikes to greatly reduce this problem, but there is a lot to be said for your solution too. Just don't do it on the day some good soul gets fed up with spammers and comes after you!;-)
Actually, he did have an open relay, he just wants to hide behind a lame claim that it wasn't open because the spammer had to lie to use it! Imagine that, a spammer lying. He was a lawyer, and we know they never lie;-). IMHO he got a lot less punishment than he deserved.
And what was the reported problem he cried about? Not an overload on his network, that was not his complaint. But his domain name being blacklisted. With good reason, IMHO. He was running a server that spammers used, and could even see this when the people he invited to test his system got right in. He then claimed they misused his system because they gave a false name and suggested he should sue them!
Maybe this guy was just too stupid to block a port on an incoming firewall to keep the outside mail server users out. It seems unlikely though, particularly if he had the ability to set up a mail server (supposedly for the use of his own local network). It sounded more to me like there was a good chance he knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to set up a server for spamming, and was blowing smoke when he got black holed.
Getting black holed will not be a problem for a dummy server that never actually sends mail (the black hole people are not out there port scanning like the spammers are). Even if your dummy mail server were to be blacklisted, so what? That in no way would affect your normal e-mail that you send through your service provider.
Sadly, unless you are an ISP or other mail service provider, filtering does nothing. The spammers work in volume. They count on hitting everyone to reach that.1% that will respond. That response is what they are after and what they get paid for. You likely know better than to ever deal with anyone who spams you or to ever respond to their spam. Filtering your own e-mail has absolutely no effect on the spammer, you were not going to respond anyway. By the time you filter they have already wasted your bandidth, and perhaps mailbox capacity and even forwarding limits from a forwarding service. Your filtering is useless, puny human!
Here is a suggestion for something that might make an impact on spammers: IF I open my firewall, I see several attempts a day from people trying to get into my mail server. Of course, I don't have a mail server, but spammers are always looking for open relay points they can spam from. My suggestion: Give the a nice open relay server they can send mail to. Of course, you don't want to piss off your service provider by sending
spam, and your upstream speed might limit you to less than you can receive, so rather than run a full mail server lets modify some mail server code to just accept mail and send it to the bit bucket. Maybe we can even misconfigure existing code to do this with no programming changes.
No valid user will be affected, assuming you don't otherwise run a mail server. All that bandwidth you pay for can be used to receive e-mail from spammers before it ever goes out. Eventually their customers will see the response go from.1% to 0% and their business will dry up. This will impact spammers, blocking your own spam after it's been delivered will not.
This need not even impact your own bandwidth. You can run the server when you are done using your system (Might make a nice screen saver - a black screen that just shows how many spammed addresses were prevented from getting spammed). Or you cam impose limits on bandwidth at a firewall or router, or even restrict hours of access.
If we set up enough different false open relay servers I think we could have a real impact on the spammers.
I don't think this is likely to work, users will defeat it as they defeat pop-ups now.
But the real issue I see here is that Internet access is more than just webpages with banners. Do you intend to intercept people's e-mail to insert ads (something that's less likely to be well received)? Would you block usenet access? What about instant messaging and other application? You need to consider all aspects of network acceess, not just WWW access, in putting togeter a business plan in this area. And you walk a fine line, limit users too much and the system will not be well received, tamper too much with things like e-mail and again I think you'll have problems. Stick to just inserting WW banners and let all users on your netork and it might be overused by applicaions that never generate hits.
"The New York Times reports (printable version) (Free blah di blah)
Hey! The printable version that was linked to didn't blah di blah me when I tried to access it! Maybe this is the cure for all of the NYT registration stuff, link to the printable version rather than the one with ads. Of course, I'll miss seeing all of the ads, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.
No, I'm not confused at all, I understand bandwidth, center frequency and the rest. I work in satellite communications and also have a ham license.
You seem confused in that you are missing the main question, which is What equipment is really needed to actually receive radio signals with this software. Sure, you can demux some signals with a sound card (I have some ham software that does a great job of this, was actually able to tune a remote receiver over the Internet, send myself the audio packets, play it back and point a mic at my speaker, recapture and digitize the audio, and pick low level signals out of the resulting information). But the original posting claimed that you could make a radio receiver with this software. Clearly you can't - you need some sort of tuner that operates at much higher frequencies than this will process, even with the fancy $1000 card mentioned, as well as with a common sound card. I want to know just what other hardware I have to have to use this fancy demux software to actually pick signals out of the air, and a sound card ain't gonna cut it.
Just wait until the chips with DRM built in come out. Sure, they and M$ want it to be a trap waiting to happen until Bill thinks the world is ready for him to spring Longhorn on us, and I know that a good number of people will not understand what they are helping to happen when they buy these CPU's; but I'll resist buying this stuff and look for every option I can find before I let them sell me aCPU that let M$ decide what software I can run.
I was diehard Intel before the Pentium III came out. When they built a serial number into the III that clearly could not be trusted for e-commerce but was great for invasion of privacy tracking of users, I stopped buying Intel and waited for AMD to come out with the Athlon. I've never regretted it. If enough technical people like me, who control the purchase of many computers each year, do this and let their reasoning be known, it may have some impact on this attempt to take control of computers from those who buy them and want to decide what software they run on them. Sure, AMD bought into what Bill Gates told them to buy into too, but I'll either look for other options or buy pre-DRM technology processors for as long as I can, and encourage others to do so too.
I'll say that displays have matured when they're at least 1,000 DPI--though most people can still tell the difference
between 1,000 DPI and 2,000 DPI.
Suggesting we need 1000 dpi monitors just doesn't make sense. Even 300 dpi would be better than common laser printer output. (yes, some now print at higher resolutions, but even these are usually run at the basic 300 dpi settings because of the quality vs. speed tradeoff.) 200 Dpi with all the possible gray levels for AA and sub-pixel font enhancing technology could give results that would contrast nicely to 300 dpi laser print output.
Of course, you can complain that even 1000 dpi is not good enough for you. And then if you ever get 2000 dpi you can complain about how slow the screen updates are. I'm more concerned with seeing that $8000 price come down.
Slashdot Mirror
Some theories, including string theory, prevent the collapse to a point. But whatever a black hole is, the event horizon of the reported hole cannot be that large for the expected mass. It's just way, way out of scale for a black hole with a reported mass between 2.6 and 3.7 million times that of the sun.
Looks like the gub'mint just does't want the DCMA to face a court test, at least not with a judge who has already expressed doubts of it's validity.
I think a better way that Dr. Peters could have stated his point is that Microsoft is reselling and redistributing the code they take from other places (and they have been taking code, without the original author's knowledge, for years) while SourceForce, AFAIK, uses the code for it's own purposes, but doesn't make the programs they produce with it available for others to download and reuse. As such, by my understanding they comply with the GPL, while M$ certainly does not.
While this is a strong point, there would be viable ways around it. After all, each box the mod chip is installed in aready has the needed code. Rather than make a copy of xbox code, a mod chip should simply copy the existing code at boot time and then make the needed adjustments (patches). Unfortunately, that still leaves the DMCA to deal with even if you go to the trouble to make a chip with no M$ code.
I have to differ with this conclusion. If one were to completely "clear room" a mod chip, building an entirely new BIOS from scratch, you certainly could not "leave the copy protection code intact", you couldn't have it at all. And the DCMA would make it illegal to understand the copy protection mechanism well enough to duplicate it, as you had to in some way reverse engineer it to duplicate it!
The problem is pretty clear - they are working to restore a routing anomaly rather than correcting the ones they still have. I would tell them that if they continue to restore anomalies things will only get wrose, but I can't get through to them.
I'm not sure raising fees will cut down on such frivolous patents, if anything it might increase them, as it makes the patent office a nice profit in issuing each patent (since there are many fees beyond the application fee that they only get if they grant a patent).
You can be sure of it if you want, but since I saw absolutely no mention of it on their webpages I'm just as sure it's not available. And I see no reason to try to track down the price on this thing. Maybe it isn't ready yet, so what? They could at least give a suggested retail price or a "less than $xxx" price. If they can't do that then the rest of the advertisement (and that's clearly what it is) is a waste of my time. The real insult is that they want me to give my e-mail address and sign up to be perpetually spammed by them, but can't give me the basic information to see if this thing is an incredible bargain or an overpriced hack.
I visited the site (at least it's not slashdoted), but I have no interest in this hack. Here are my complaints:
I wasted time looking at their site, but s far as I could tell they don't want to tell me the price on the thing. If the price is listed anywhere it is certainly not easy to find, even a targeted price range. Do they think I'm so hard up to have this that I'll tell them I want it even if they will not tell the price?
While they don't seem to want to tell the price, they did mention that there will be a standard software demodulator and an optional "Professional demodulator". And more demodulators later. They don't say what the professional demodulator will cost, but as it is optional it certainly will cost. So why would I want to buy their stuff and have crippled non-professional software? And on top of that they know the professional modulator can be replaced with something else in the future that will obviously cost me more money!
OK, I know it costs money to develop software, but in this case when the software is tightly tied to their hardware, I want a company that sells me the hardware and then supports me, not one that tries to bleed me dry, even delivering less than professional software with the basic package and then asking if I want the good software! Of course I want the good software. What I want even more is good open source software, or even hardware interface specs so that I can roll my own. But that is hardly likely to be forthcoming from a company that looks at their hardware customers as cash cows for their software.
There are other issues as well, the inside of a PC is hardly the best environment for a RF receiver. But I might be willing to experiment with this hardware if it was sold with decent software without a bait and switch approach, and the company was more open about things like the prices and the hardware interface.
Here I was all excited about getting dropped out of a jet and I see the plane has props.
No. It's another good thing that can be done, but it's not what I'm advocating. Basically he has set up a mail server expecting to get mail for his own addresses. He then wastes as much time as he can of the open relay the spammer is using. This at least slows things down for the spammer, and he might just get the attention of someone in charge of the server. Aother good thing to do, I think we need to do lots of things like this to stay ahead of the spammers. The dummy open relay would be another but different tool. Rather than slow down the conection it should take as much spam as it can, so that it doesn't go elsewhere and so that the paying client of the spammer would eventually see that he is getting no results.
Oh, I don't think that's fair statement. What if I'm a company and I have 1000 employees all recieving email .....
If you are providing mail for 1200 users then I certainly would include you in the "service provider" group that I mentioned. I'm glad to see you doing it. I don't discount the technology, I wished my ISP used it, and more importantly I wish my forwarding service used it before it counted spam against my quota.
Another advantage to false news servers that would just be used by spammers: As the technology evolved I would envision that a network of such decoy relays could build up information that could be provided instantly to the service providers quickly to help make their filters more accurate and responsive.
This makes no sense at all. How many book do they intend to span with the first movie? I would think they would have a hard time doing justice to even the first book in a single movie. If they are going to get to the final book it will be a disaster. There is certainly no reason to do anything with the final book until after they see if the first movie is a hit.
I doubt that there are many spammers out there who are not using all of their available bandwidth to send spam already, I can't see how setting up dummy port 23's would make spam worse. Just the opposite: While this can be started by a few changes to an open source mail server, or maybe even by misconfiguring an existing mail server, it should grow and evolve. I think we can beat the spammers, but not just by being impressed on how well we can filter our own mail. Heck, as they add smarts, we could add smarts too. If we can identify the test messages with reasonable certainty we can elect to send them through. We could even build a nice P2P network of systems cooperating to stay one step ahead of the spammers.
Can anyone get us started on this? Provide some Windows and/or Linux code to start the roach motel e-mail server (spammers log in but they don't send out)? I'll get one running tonight if I can get a good dummy mail server for Windows (and just slightly longer to put the hardware together if I have to build up a Linux system).
As I mentioned (in a post that sadly was sent before being previewed), I can open my port 23 on my system and get several hits in a night for people trying to find a open relay server. Maybe they do look to the blacklists, since some of the mail on a blacklisted server still gets through, but they are spending a lot of time to find those open relay servers in the first place. If you're on the Internet, open a mail server (real or not) and it will be found the first day. I'm suggesting we make it much harder for the spammers to find a real open relay server - by giving them lots of decoy servers that will at a minimum cost them a lot of time and at best might even receive their bulk spamming rather than a real open relay.
Sure, they might test it. Still seems better than doing nothing. If a spammer passes me 1000 pieces of mail and waits a few hours, that's 999 pieces that didn't go out and a few hours of his time. If only I do this it will have little impact, but if the slashdot effect kicked in and there were so many false servers that it kept happening to him over and over again, that would be sweet!
And of course, some spammers will be lazy and not test. Jackpot!
Of course, the servers should look different. Some Linux, some Windows, some something else. Claim to be different applications. We might even start building smarts into the servers (if you get only one email, and it's going to an address that is likely a test address (his own domain, a mailbox service like Hotmail, or a local ISP that serves the same area his packets came from), wait one minute and then send it on. Worst that can happen is your false relay gets blacklisted (not a problem).
The bottom line is, which will have any impact on spammers, a lot of false relays out there that discard their e-mail destined for victims that keep the system going, or filtering e-mail that you were never going to read anyway?
I've often wondered why we don't see a few spammer's heads on pikes to greatly reduce this problem, but there is a lot to be said for your solution too. Just don't do it on the day some good soul gets fed up with spammers and comes after you! ;-)
And what was the reported problem he cried about? Not an overload on his network, that was not his complaint. But his domain name being blacklisted. With good reason, IMHO. He was running a server that spammers used, and could even see this when the people he invited to test his system got right in. He then claimed they misused his system because they gave a false name and suggested he should sue them!
Maybe this guy was just too stupid to block a port on an incoming firewall to keep the outside mail server users out. It seems unlikely though, particularly if he had the ability to set up a mail server (supposedly for the use of his own local network). It sounded more to me like there was a good chance he knew exactly what he was doing and wanted to set up a server for spamming, and was blowing smoke when he got black holed.
Getting black holed will not be a problem for a dummy server that never actually sends mail (the black hole people are not out there port scanning like the spammers are). Even if your dummy mail server were to be blacklisted, so what? That in no way would affect your normal e-mail that you send through your service provider.
Here is a suggestion for something that might make an impact on spammers: IF I open my firewall, I see several attempts a day from people trying to get into my mail server. Of course, I don't have a mail server, but spammers are always looking for open relay points they can spam from. My suggestion: Give the a nice open relay server they can send mail to. Of course, you don't want to piss off your service provider by sending spam, and your upstream speed might limit you to less than you can receive, so rather than run a full mail server lets modify some mail server code to just accept mail and send it to the bit bucket. Maybe we can even misconfigure existing code to do this with no programming changes.
No valid user will be affected, assuming you don't otherwise run a mail server. All that bandwidth you pay for can be used to receive e-mail from spammers before it ever goes out. Eventually their customers will see the response go from .1% to 0% and their business will dry up. This will impact spammers, blocking your own spam after it's been delivered will not.
This need not even impact your own bandwidth. You can run the server when you are done using your system (Might make a nice screen saver - a black screen that just shows how many spammed addresses were prevented from getting spammed). Or you cam impose limits on bandwidth at a firewall or router, or even restrict hours of access.
If we set up enough different false open relay servers I think we could have a real impact on the spammers.
But the real issue I see here is that Internet access is more than just webpages with banners. Do you intend to intercept people's e-mail to insert ads (something that's less likely to be well received)? Would you block usenet access? What about instant messaging and other application? You need to consider all aspects of network acceess, not just WWW access, in putting togeter a business plan in this area. And you walk a fine line, limit users too much and the system will not be well received, tamper too much with things like e-mail and again I think you'll have problems. Stick to just inserting WW banners and let all users on your netork and it might be overused by applicaions that never generate hits.
Hey! The printable version that was linked to didn't blah di blah me when I tried to access it! Maybe this is the cure for all of the NYT registration stuff, link to the printable version rather than the one with ads. Of course, I'll miss seeing all of the ads, but I'm willing to make the sacrifice.
You seem confused in that you are missing the main question, which is What equipment is really needed to actually receive radio signals with this software. Sure, you can demux some signals with a sound card (I have some ham software that does a great job of this, was actually able to tune a remote receiver over the Internet, send myself the audio packets, play it back and point a mic at my speaker, recapture and digitize the audio, and pick low level signals out of the resulting information). But the original posting claimed that you could make a radio receiver with this software. Clearly you can't - you need some sort of tuner that operates at much higher frequencies than this will process, even with the fancy $1000 card mentioned, as well as with a common sound card. I want to know just what other hardware I have to have to use this fancy demux software to actually pick signals out of the air, and a sound card ain't gonna cut it.
I was diehard Intel before the Pentium III came out. When they built a serial number into the III that clearly could not be trusted for e-commerce but was great for invasion of privacy tracking of users, I stopped buying Intel and waited for AMD to come out with the Athlon. I've never regretted it. If enough technical people like me, who control the purchase of many computers each year, do this and let their reasoning be known, it may have some impact on this attempt to take control of computers from those who buy them and want to decide what software they run on them. Sure, AMD bought into what Bill Gates told them to buy into too, but I'll either look for other options or buy pre-DRM technology processors for as long as I can, and encourage others to do so too.
And I think Keaton was the best Batman too, and I'm not a Keaton fan.
Suggesting we need 1000 dpi monitors just doesn't make sense. Even 300 dpi would be better than common laser printer output. (yes, some now print at higher resolutions, but even these are usually run at the basic 300 dpi settings because of the quality vs. speed tradeoff.) 200 Dpi with all the possible gray levels for AA and sub-pixel font enhancing technology could give results that would contrast nicely to 300 dpi laser print output.
Of course, you can complain that even 1000 dpi is not good enough for you. And then if you ever get 2000 dpi you can complain about how slow the screen updates are. I'm more concerned with seeing that $8000 price come down.