An echo chamber, to be sure. But what of competition?
In a world where all the applications worked seemlessly across operating systems (something similar to that of the PC hardware side), then competition would take hold and customers would get more choice.
How about if the DoJ breaks up Microsoft into 3 companies? One of them continues to support and update Windows XP. The others do likewise, except with Windows Vista and Windows Seven. They all compete to offer the best features, performance, and value to customers while maintaining application interoperability.
I think that would be interesting to see which survive, and which thrive.
And if we extended this to *nix, Mac, et al? More competition, more choices. A better tomorrow?
I absolutely agree with the above post. If developers were to dramatically ratchet up the phsyics complexity in modern game titles, the disruption would be felt in all areas of gameplay.
One thing that I know the average gamers grasp are bottlenecks, so I'll put things in those terms. Consider your favorite title, whatever that be. Now think of what efforts the developers put into balancing performance with image quality and, by association, realism. For many of the titles out there that you may consider your favorite, I'd hazard a guess that most are bottlenecked by the graphics card.
So, let's rebalance the equation just a bit by adding more objects to interact with. No longer can we get by with large polys that are parallax mapped to better approximate more complex geometries, because our collision detection and object deformation algorithms depend on higher raw geometry complexity. By raising the bar on the physics complexity, we've shifted the bottleneck a bit more towards the CPU and/or PPU, but in turn we've added more geometry to be sent to the graphics card. This geometry results in more fragments generated that must be processed, further increasing the workload of the graphics pipeline.
Now, I know what you're saying. We could certainly use techniques like occlusion culling and get rid of as much extraneous geometry as possible to reduce this overhead, but the bottom line is that the performance profile is now rebalanced in such a way that more physics added into the title may require that one adjust the other performance knobs a bit to maintain the same FPS. Things like resolution, aniso, FSAA, etc. The tradeoffs for moving closer to some asymptotic physics nirvana (regardless of CPU or PPU acceleration) may not be justified given the increase in workload on the graphics pipeline.
My point is, it's all about weighing the performance with the (subjective) image quality / immersiveness level. In so far as PCs are concerned (by comparison to console environments which has a known set of hardware speeds and feeds), we tend to lean towards ensuring adequate frames per second can be achieved in the 'average' configuration. The proverbial icing on the cake becomes toggle options in the video settings.
But, then again, this leads us to the issue of which options are available to whom, and how to establish a baseline for physics complexity in online titles, where players should have a level field, one which precludes the environment from providing advantage to one class of gaming configuration.
The GPGPU course was at the top of my list for SIGGRAPH 2004 this year, and I was impressed with all of the presenters' material. However, in my estimation, Sh is built to more closely resemble the existing HLSL for DX and similar GLSLang from the ARB.
Brook, on the other hand, was written from a more C-like perspective, and approaches the GPU as a massively data-parallel stream processor (well, Sh does as well, but IMHO Brook achieves that aim more directly as is evidenced by things like iterator streams and similar kernels).
Actually, as shown in this screenshot of Media Portal, the user interface is a direct copy of images found in the Dell Media Experience user interface, which itself was modeled (different artwork, same color schemes and theme) in the likeness of Media Center.
[I doubt] that you've ever tried to write a game.
I'm sure you do doubt. Likely it is because I disagree with some of your assertions, as opposed to a perceived ignorance about game development.
Believe me that when the frame rate is only 30, that's not going to be the only thing slowed down.
You're making incredible assumptions here about the 'average engine'. If I tie my engine's frame redraws to a network status update, and do no client-side prediction or other mitigation, surely 30 frames-per-second may indicate some other engine performance problem. To say that as a blanket declaration that 30 fps in a game means that there are other things (aside from the graphics engine) "slowed down" is ludicrous. What if you've done so much texturing that you exceed the fillrate of the graphics adapter (though this was more of a problem in the GLIDE days with cards that couldn't weigh in greater than 333 Mpixel/second, but I digress)? Certainly in that case you are frame-limited due to fillrate bandwidth, and every other subsystem in your engine is simply idling waiting on the graphics adapter.
Games are written for probably around 60 fps with possible settings that would allow 30 to be playable.
Try to be as objective in your arguments as possible. You don't help your case by stating that settings "allow 30 to be playable". Quantify playable or choose another way to make your point.
However, the networking code and everything else is designed to work while the the computer can support processing 60 fps to draw.
True.
At 30, the computer is functioning below the intended optimum and performance does start lagging.
These are not mutually inclusive events. The latter does not beget the former, nor does the former beget the latter in many cases. You're assuming that the developer isn't targeting 30 fps. You're also assuming that some other engine code has effectively subjucated the graphics engine such that the graphics engine is helpless to perform updates while these other components are busy.
In theory, maybe a person won't notice the difference between 90 and 30 fps redrawing the same thing on a monitor that flawlessly displays refreshes at a billion hertz WHERE ONLY SIMPLE CALCULATIONS ARE DONE, like a circle moving around really fast, and the only difference is the cap at 30. That's what you're suggesting... OF COURSE a person might not be able to tell!
Not sure I understand your assertion, but I can tell you that's definitely not an accurate interpretation of my previous post. Feel free to read it once more and let me know which section was confusing to you.
What I am saying is that a low fps in almost every major game that I can think of will occur on an under performing computer which has some bottleneck that prevents it from going to 90 fps, and whether or not it is the graphics card or a slow cpu or slow memory or cached memory or not, PERFORMANCE IS WORSE.
Correct. I don't believe I was refuting that. What I've demonstrated is that:
Frames rendered per second and the refresh rate of the monitor are different measurements and without synchronizing to the vertical blanking interval, one is not an indicator of the other
People do not see "much faster updates" at 90+ fps regardless of refresh frequency, as my example of 180 fps rendering on a 60 Hz display without sync to vblank enabled
Every single person will find 90 fps more enjoyable.
Again, try to support your argument with objective data. Sweeping generalizations do not help your argument. Couldn't it be reasoned that many people would be unable to discern 90 fps rendering from 30 or 60? I would be inclined to argue for your subjective assertion if you had said "Many avid game players..." as opposed to "Every single person...".
30 fps isn't a setting as you suggest, it's a SYMPTOM of a bottleneck.
I've searched through my previous post but I'm yet unable
First of all, you're confusing monitor refresh rate with the number of times a game redraws the screen. Regardless, I'll address your post.
Phosphors need to be refreshed before they expire.
True.
If they start dimming before they are refreshed, then you will notice slight blinking compared to looking at a piece of paper. Your monitor tries to do this at as fast hertz as possible.
True.
If 85 hz means that for your monitor, pixels are refreshed before they even start dimming, then you won't ever be sick from it.
True, but the latter assertion is subjective.
However, when frames are refreshed (in a game), they do not "dim". False. Frame refreshes in a game function similarly to that of non-game screen refreshes, save for the region of memory that the graphics adapter scans out to the DAC/TMDS. The point is, the frequency at which I redraw the contents of my 3D (or non-3D) rendering context is completely disconnected from the speed by which my DAC or TMDS scans this region of memory in order to send pixel data to the display device.
What I mean is, old frames don't expire.
True, but this is irrespective of being "in game" or "out of game". There is a region of video (or host) memory that stores the data used to describe the desktop, application windows or perhaps a game that is running. They don't "expire" per se, rather they are written over a window update. The closest paradigm I can think that resembles "expiration" is when a window context is marked by an application as requiring an update, but still that has little to do with the contents of the framebuffer, and nothing whatsoever to do with monitor refresh rates.
If you are staring at the same thing that doesn't change, it won't matter if it updates 200 frames a second or 1 frame a second--YOU WON'T KNOW.
True.
In a game, people will know the difference between 90 fps (fluidity) and 30 fps (not fluid around fast jerking around of mouse.) False. I'll hold off on posting a novel, but suffice to say that this depends on the
individual's persistence of vision. Some people can visualize "gaps in motion" or flickering at 30 frames per second of a given animation, but on average, 24 frames per second is sufficient for creating the illusion of motion, thus movie playback standardized on that method.
The person will FEEL the difference in speed. There will be a laggier feel as opposed to the 90 fps. False. This is all subjective. Additionally, I believe you are confusing input response delay with graphics response delay.
30 fps doesn't just mean less fps, it also means there's more time needed for the computer to draw that frame before showing it. False. Some arbitrarily "low" framerate (again low is subjective, bear with me) is not a reliable indicator that a particular set of frames has required more time to draw. Frame limitation is a perfect example of this.
To argue your point for you, I'll provide an example supporting your assertion. Suppose I have a graphics engine that renders bouncing balls, and I am in a room with a single bouncing ball. The lighting is per-texel, texture-based (normal map) N dot L with 4 textures per pixel. With one ball being rendered my scene can be drawn 90 times per second. I then move to another room in my world where there are 50 of these bouncing balls and the time to draw each frame extends out past 34 ms, resulting in less than 30 rendering context updates per second, purely due to a limitation in the graphics engine to draw these updates. In that case, there would be more time required to draw the frame.
The point is that the framerate, as in the number of frames that are drawn per second, is completely disconnected from the speed at which that content can be scanned out and drawn to the display devi
AFAIK, the emulators have always been legal; merely the ROM's used in emulators could potentially violate the DMCA if they contain materials copyrighted by an individual or corporation.
But I understand you meant the games themselves. IANALE but I would agree that even a strict interpretation of this exception would apply to arcade games that are no longer produced or otherwise "reasonably available". The reference to "video games" makes for easy application. Further, it can be argued that arcade games "require the original...hardware as a condition of access."
With that, it could also be argued that Super Nintendo (among other systems) ROM's now reside under the fair use rights established here, as that they require both "original media" and "[original] hardware" as "a condition of access".
Re:Who cares?
on
NYT on RFID
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
...this isn't something to be worried about so long as you haven't been doing anything wrong.
I really wish people wouldn't use this argument for anything. You see, "wrong" is subjective. And unfortunately, in many governments of the world today, that which is wrong is determined by those with money and influence over legislators.
Today I'm doing nothing wrong by owning the book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", but if those in power deem that to be wrong tomorrow, I'd better find a way to keep that from their attention.
We must fight RFID's by refusing to purchase products that employ them. And as for companies that use them, even in business practice to label pallettes, we must boycott their products and services.
I concur with your assessment that H.R. 3161 does not appear to have room for loopholes, given its extreme brevity.
However, by ratifying and giving the FTC the ability to enforce the huge legislation that H.R. 3161 enacts (found in U.S. Code here), there may be impetus to vote down something so powerful, especially in the hands of the FTC. It's a balance of power I suppose. I haven't had time to read 16 CFR Part 310, but I suspect that Mr. Paul is concerned about the extension of powers given to the FTC that could be abused.
I'm not sure though, as that he hasn't replied to my email yet. He may be getting a huge influx of mail as that the vote was so lopsided.
I don't know the others, but I've read almost all of Ron Paul's speeches and met him in person last month when he spoke out against the Patriot Act.
Ron Paul isn't my rep, as that I'm in Austin, but he's the rep for some folks outside Austin. I know there is a really good reason why he voted against this, and I've emailed him to see if him or one of his aides can send me a synopsis of that reasoning.
Make no mistake, Ron Paul is one of the few patriots we have who continues to speak for the people. If he voted against this, it's may be because:
The text of the legislation was too weak and afforded too many loopholes for another Judicial ruling against the FTC's actions
There is some kind of really nasty rider that 412 other congressmen missed
As soon as he emails me back I'll post something in reply. But, please, understand that Ron Paul and his aides are amazing. They stayed late at the deadline of the submission of the Patriot ACT and read through every word of it before voting against it. I'm sure he has good reason to vote against this measure.
Though they only spent three-quarters of a page of copy on this, I found it interesting that U.S. News and World Report did a decent job with this week's coverage of this topic.
Typically, I don't have many kind words for USNWR, often questioning my own subscription tendencies, but I am pleased to see they reference the Johns Hopkins and Rice report regarding the insecurity of the Diebold system.
Now, if only folks would see the same potential flaws in the Hart Intercivic system, then perhaps they would not be shipping 9,000 e-Slate voting machines to California.
Personally, I detest that the last four times I've voted here in Texas I've walked away with a laundry ticket. I demand a paper trail! Or at least an online database where I can review all my past votes cast. (Of course, in a perfect world, the database would be open for peer review - r/o - and the source to the programs that access and tally the votes would be available for peer review.)
Many DVD disks include "InterActual" (previously known as "PC Friendly") software which is autorun upon DVD insertion on Windows machines. To the typical home consumer, the message presented appears as if it originated from the PC itself, prompting the user to install the software in order to view the DVD content.
There are several issues with this, and relavent to the topic of "illegitimacy of spyware": 1. "InterActual" doesn't actually install an MPEG2 decoder filter, it merely uses the existing filter provided with a new PC 2. "InterActual" software attempts to redirect the user to whatever content is available online relating (or not) to the title being viewed - spam essentially 3. "InterActual" assigns itself as the default DVD playback application in Windows, and thus the user is subjected to the inferior quality of the DVD navigation software 4. "InterActual", if the user performs the standard "click-thru" agreement to watch their DVD content, broadcasts information about what DVD content the user views
Suffice to say, these points are easily discovered with a Google search, so I'll refrain from excessive linking and leave further research to the reader.
Now, for the more-than-capable user (read: most of you reading this), an explanation for preventing/disabling/uninstalling this spyware is obviated. But as the initiated, it's our duty to explain this to those who may not understand (read: friends, neighbors, family) what happens with spyware such as "InterActual" software.
On a personal note: After purchasing my last PC from Dell (please no "Dude" jokes) and inserting a DVD disk, it presented me with a dialog informing me that "InterActual" software was attempting to install and overwrite my settings, and gave me the option to block "InterActual" from installing on my machine. As expected, content is played through the standard DVD software provided by the OEM and I don't have to see that annoying banner anymore when I insert an "InterActual" or "PC Friendly Enabled!" disk.
Slashdot Mirror
An echo chamber, to be sure. But what of competition?
In a world where all the applications worked seemlessly across operating systems (something similar to that of the PC hardware side), then competition would take hold and customers would get more choice.
How about if the DoJ breaks up Microsoft into 3 companies? One of them continues to support and update Windows XP. The others do likewise, except with Windows Vista and Windows Seven. They all compete to offer the best features, performance, and value to customers while maintaining application interoperability.
I think that would be interesting to see which survive, and which thrive.
And if we extended this to *nix, Mac, et al? More competition, more choices. A better tomorrow?
Sleight of hand my friends
They distact with the Taskbar
Mojave Kool Aid
I absolutely agree with the above post. If developers were to dramatically ratchet up the phsyics complexity in modern game titles, the disruption would be felt in all areas of gameplay. One thing that I know the average gamers grasp are bottlenecks, so I'll put things in those terms. Consider your favorite title, whatever that be. Now think of what efforts the developers put into balancing performance with image quality and, by association, realism. For many of the titles out there that you may consider your favorite, I'd hazard a guess that most are bottlenecked by the graphics card. So, let's rebalance the equation just a bit by adding more objects to interact with. No longer can we get by with large polys that are parallax mapped to better approximate more complex geometries, because our collision detection and object deformation algorithms depend on higher raw geometry complexity. By raising the bar on the physics complexity, we've shifted the bottleneck a bit more towards the CPU and/or PPU, but in turn we've added more geometry to be sent to the graphics card. This geometry results in more fragments generated that must be processed, further increasing the workload of the graphics pipeline. Now, I know what you're saying. We could certainly use techniques like occlusion culling and get rid of as much extraneous geometry as possible to reduce this overhead, but the bottom line is that the performance profile is now rebalanced in such a way that more physics added into the title may require that one adjust the other performance knobs a bit to maintain the same FPS. Things like resolution, aniso, FSAA, etc. The tradeoffs for moving closer to some asymptotic physics nirvana (regardless of CPU or PPU acceleration) may not be justified given the increase in workload on the graphics pipeline. My point is, it's all about weighing the performance with the (subjective) image quality / immersiveness level. In so far as PCs are concerned (by comparison to console environments which has a known set of hardware speeds and feeds), we tend to lean towards ensuring adequate frames per second can be achieved in the 'average' configuration. The proverbial icing on the cake becomes toggle options in the video settings. But, then again, this leads us to the issue of which options are available to whom, and how to establish a baseline for physics complexity in online titles, where players should have a level field, one which precludes the environment from providing advantage to one class of gaming configuration.
Gee, and I thought Muse had this concept well in hand.
Maybe I missed the point, but it seems like there are a ton of great web-based 3D user environments.
Oh, but wait, it's based on some offshoot of an esoteric language! Now that's innovative.
The GPGPU course was at the top of my list for SIGGRAPH 2004 this year, and I was impressed with all of the presenters' material. However, in my estimation, Sh is built to more closely resemble the existing HLSL for DX and similar GLSLang from the ARB.
Brook, on the other hand, was written from a more C-like perspective, and approaches the GPU as a massively data-parallel stream processor (well, Sh does as well, but IMHO Brook achieves that aim more directly as is evidenced by things like iterator streams and similar kernels).
Actually, as shown in this screenshot of Media Portal, the user interface is a direct copy of images found in the Dell Media Experience user interface, which itself was modeled (different artwork, same color schemes and theme) in the likeness of Media Center.
I'm sure you do doubt. Likely it is because I disagree with some of your assertions, as opposed to a perceived ignorance about game development.
Believe me that when the frame rate is only 30, that's not going to be the only thing slowed down.
You're making incredible assumptions here about the 'average engine'. If I tie my engine's frame redraws to a network status update, and do no client-side prediction or other mitigation, surely 30 frames-per-second may indicate some other engine performance problem. To say that as a blanket declaration that 30 fps in a game means that there are other things (aside from the graphics engine) "slowed down" is ludicrous. What if you've done so much texturing that you exceed the fillrate of the graphics adapter (though this was more of a problem in the GLIDE days with cards that couldn't weigh in greater than 333 Mpixel/second, but I digress)? Certainly in that case you are frame-limited due to fillrate bandwidth, and every other subsystem in your engine is simply idling waiting on the graphics adapter.
Games are written for probably around 60 fps with possible settings that would allow 30 to be playable.
Try to be as objective in your arguments as possible. You don't help your case by stating that settings "allow 30 to be playable". Quantify playable or choose another way to make your point.
However, the networking code and everything else is designed to work while the the computer can support processing 60 fps to draw.
True.
At 30, the computer is functioning below the intended optimum and performance does start lagging.
These are not mutually inclusive events. The latter does not beget the former, nor does the former beget the latter in many cases. You're assuming that the developer isn't targeting 30 fps. You're also assuming that some other engine code has effectively subjucated the graphics engine such that the graphics engine is helpless to perform updates while these other components are busy.
In theory, maybe a person won't notice the difference between 90 and 30 fps redrawing the same thing on a monitor that flawlessly displays refreshes at a billion hertz WHERE ONLY SIMPLE CALCULATIONS ARE DONE, like a circle moving around really fast, and the only difference is the cap at 30. That's what you're suggesting... OF COURSE a person might not be able to tell!
Not sure I understand your assertion, but I can tell you that's definitely not an accurate interpretation of my previous post. Feel free to read it once more and let me know which section was confusing to you.
What I am saying is that a low fps in almost every major game that I can think of will occur on an under performing computer which has some bottleneck that prevents it from going to 90 fps, and whether or not it is the graphics card or a slow cpu or slow memory or cached memory or not, PERFORMANCE IS WORSE.
Correct. I don't believe I was refuting that. What I've demonstrated is that:
Every single person will find 90 fps more enjoyable.
Again, try to support your argument with objective data. Sweeping generalizations do not help your argument. Couldn't it be reasoned that many people would be unable to discern 90 fps rendering from 30 or 60? I would be inclined to argue for your subjective assertion if you had said "Many avid game players..." as opposed to "Every single person...".
30 fps isn't a setting as you suggest, it's a SYMPTOM of a bottleneck.
I've searched through my previous post but I'm yet unable
You're mistaken. Here's why:
First of all, you're confusing monitor refresh rate with the number of times a game redraws the screen. Regardless, I'll address your post.
Phosphors need to be refreshed before they expire.
True.
If they start dimming before they are refreshed, then you will notice slight blinking compared to looking at a piece of paper. Your monitor tries to do this at as fast hertz as possible.
True.
If 85 hz means that for your monitor, pixels are refreshed before they even start dimming, then you won't ever be sick from it.
True, but the latter assertion is subjective.
However, when frames are refreshed (in a game), they do not "dim".
False. Frame refreshes in a game function similarly to that of non-game screen refreshes, save for the region of memory that the graphics adapter scans out to the DAC/TMDS. The point is, the frequency at which I redraw the contents of my 3D (or non-3D) rendering context is completely disconnected from the speed by which my DAC or TMDS scans this region of memory in order to send pixel data to the display device.
What I mean is, old frames don't expire.
True, but this is irrespective of being "in game" or "out of game". There is a region of video (or host) memory that stores the data used to describe the desktop, application windows or perhaps a game that is running. They don't "expire" per se, rather they are written over a window update. The closest paradigm I can think that resembles "expiration" is when a window context is marked by an application as requiring an update, but still that has little to do with the contents of the framebuffer, and nothing whatsoever to do with monitor refresh rates.
If you are staring at the same thing that doesn't change, it won't matter if it updates 200 frames a second or 1 frame a second--YOU WON'T KNOW.
True.
In a game, people will know the difference between 90 fps (fluidity) and 30 fps (not fluid around fast jerking around of mouse.)
False. I'll hold off on posting a novel, but suffice to say that this depends on the individual's persistence of vision. Some people can visualize "gaps in motion" or flickering at 30 frames per second of a given animation, but on average, 24 frames per second is sufficient for creating the illusion of motion, thus movie playback standardized on that method.
The person will FEEL the difference in speed. There will be a laggier feel as opposed to the 90 fps.
False. This is all subjective. Additionally, I believe you are confusing input response delay with graphics response delay.
30 fps doesn't just mean less fps, it also means there's more time needed for the computer to draw that frame before showing it.
False. Some arbitrarily "low" framerate (again low is subjective, bear with me) is not a reliable indicator that a particular set of frames has required more time to draw. Frame limitation is a perfect example of this.
To argue your point for you, I'll provide an example supporting your assertion. Suppose I have a graphics engine that renders bouncing balls, and I am in a room with a single bouncing ball. The lighting is per-texel, texture-based (normal map) N dot L with 4 textures per pixel. With one ball being rendered my scene can be drawn 90 times per second. I then move to another room in my world where there are 50 of these bouncing balls and the time to draw each frame extends out past 34 ms, resulting in less than 30 rendering context updates per second, purely due to a limitation in the graphics engine to draw these updates. In that case, there would be more time required to draw the frame.
The point is that the framerate, as in the number of frames that are drawn per second, is completely disconnected from the speed at which that content can be scanned out and drawn to the display devi
Motion Research - SportVue
Agreed.
As with all codified legislation, it's worth little without judicial precedent. Yet another reason to donate to the EFF.
AFAIK, the emulators have always been legal; merely the ROM's used in emulators could potentially violate the DMCA if they contain materials copyrighted by an individual or corporation.
But I understand you meant the games themselves. IANALE but I would agree that even a strict interpretation of this exception would apply to arcade games that are no longer produced or otherwise "reasonably available". The reference to "video games" makes for easy application. Further, it can be argued that arcade games "require the original...hardware as a condition of access."
With that, it could also be argued that Super Nintendo (among other systems) ROM's now reside under the fair use rights established here, as that they require both "original media" and "[original] hardware" as "a condition of access".
...this isn't something to be worried about so long as you haven't been doing anything wrong.
I really wish people wouldn't use this argument for anything. You see, "wrong" is subjective. And unfortunately, in many governments of the world today, that which is wrong is determined by those with money and influence over legislators.
Today I'm doing nothing wrong by owning the book "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy", but if those in power deem that to be wrong tomorrow, I'd better find a way to keep that from their attention.
We must fight RFID's by refusing to purchase products that employ them. And as for companies that use them, even in business practice to label pallettes, we must boycott their products and services.
I concur with your assessment that H.R. 3161 does not appear to have room for loopholes, given its extreme brevity.
However, by ratifying and giving the FTC the ability to enforce the huge legislation that H.R. 3161 enacts (found in U.S. Code here), there may be impetus to vote down something so powerful, especially in the hands of the FTC. It's a balance of power I suppose. I haven't had time to read 16 CFR Part 310, but I suspect that Mr. Paul is concerned about the extension of powers given to the FTC that could be abused.
I'm not sure though, as that he hasn't replied to my email yet. He may be getting a huge influx of mail as that the vote was so lopsided.
Ron Paul isn't my rep, as that I'm in Austin, but he's the rep for some folks outside Austin. I know there is a really good reason why he voted against this, and I've emailed him to see if him or one of his aides can send me a synopsis of that reasoning.
Make no mistake, Ron Paul is one of the few patriots we have who continues to speak for the people. If he voted against this, it's may be because:
As soon as he emails me back I'll post something in reply. But, please, understand that Ron Paul and his aides are amazing. They stayed late at the deadline of the submission of the Patriot ACT and read through every word of it before voting against it. I'm sure he has good reason to vote against this measure.
Though they only spent three-quarters of a page of copy on this, I found it interesting that U.S. News and World Report did a decent job with this week's coverage of this topic.
Typically, I don't have many kind words for USNWR, often questioning my own subscription tendencies, but I am pleased to see they reference the Johns Hopkins and Rice report regarding the insecurity of the Diebold system.
Now, if only folks would see the same potential flaws in the Hart Intercivic system, then perhaps they would not be shipping 9,000 e-Slate voting machines to California.
Personally, I detest that the last four times I've voted here in Texas I've walked away with a laundry ticket. I demand a paper trail! Or at least an online database where I can review all my past votes cast. (Of course, in a perfect world, the database would be open for peer review - r/o - and the source to the programs that access and tally the votes would be available for peer review.)
Many DVD disks include "InterActual" (previously known as "PC Friendly") software which is autorun upon DVD insertion on Windows machines. To the typical home consumer, the message presented appears as if it originated from the PC itself, prompting the user to install the software in order to view the DVD content.
There are several issues with this, and relavent to the topic of "illegitimacy of spyware":
1. "InterActual" doesn't actually install an MPEG2 decoder filter, it merely uses the existing filter provided with a new PC
2. "InterActual" software attempts to redirect the user to whatever content is available online relating (or not) to the title being viewed - spam essentially
3. "InterActual" assigns itself as the default DVD playback application in Windows, and thus the user is subjected to the inferior quality of the DVD navigation software
4. "InterActual", if the user performs the standard "click-thru" agreement to watch their DVD content, broadcasts information about what DVD content the user views
Suffice to say, these points are easily discovered with a Google search, so I'll refrain from excessive linking and leave further research to the reader.
Now, for the more-than-capable user (read: most of you reading this), an explanation for preventing/disabling/uninstalling this spyware is obviated. But as the initiated, it's our duty to explain this to those who may not understand (read: friends, neighbors, family) what happens with spyware such as "InterActual" software.
On a personal note: After purchasing my last PC from Dell (please no "Dude" jokes) and inserting a DVD disk, it presented me with a dialog informing me that "InterActual" software was attempting to install and overwrite my settings, and gave me the option to block "InterActual" from installing on my machine. As expected, content is played through the standard DVD software provided by the OEM and I don't have to see that annoying banner anymore when I insert an "InterActual" or "PC Friendly Enabled!" disk.
Cheers!
J. Esterhaus