Wish that was the case... but im with Rogers... which basically has the cable monopoly in Eastern Canada. They charge 8.95 a month for digital cable ( which is basically the setop box rental ) or 14.95 $ / month for HD capable digital cable.
Then again, anyone who has dealt with Rogers for either CableTV or Internet... or even cellular... knows their a right set of bastards!
They want to cut out MythTV, Tivo, splitters, H-cards, and cable descramblers. It's becoming too easy to get at the current data, so they want a change.
with the analog system working (fairly) well as is, why else would they create a new 'standard' for the digital system? It certainly isn't in the interest of the consumer.
Although I agree with alot of what you are saying, I believe you are missing the point on the above statements. The primary purpose for the "open" standard is so that hardware ( namingly TV's ) can start encorporating TV tuners ( like they have now with analog ) right into the tv, as to remove the setop boxes. Go shopping for HD tv's and find out how many dont have tuners built in? Thats because there is no major standard on how signals are broadcast... I for one like the idea, as I could get rid of my RCA direcTV box... or could apply for digital HD ready cable, without having to add, yet another decoder box, to my entertainment system.
The other part of this is, I believe the FCC has a mandate for all signals to start being broadcast in High Definition, within the next 3 or 4 years. In order to meet that criteria, the industry is going to have to standardize on the format those broadcasts are going to be in. I imagine the TV industry went through this before with the analog signals, and then the switch to colour broadcasting... but thats so far before my time I dont remember it. Things get a bit more complicated once you start talking digital vs analog, as now you also have things like security, codecs, etc... to consider aswell.
All that said... I dont doubt in a heartbeat that the major cable companies and satellite companies would *LOVE* to kill of TIVO like devices. I just dont believe that is their motivation behind this standard.
If they are standardizing digital cable to use a certain set of codecs, encryption, etc... What will happen to all of the people who have purchased set top boxes today? I realize this is just the definition of the format to use for TV tuner cards, but as a result, you have to figure the change in format is going to impact all of the people currently using a digital set top box today. I myself almost purchased a Scientific Atlanta set top cable box, as the monthly cable fees my provider charged ( Rogers ) for the box rental were insane. Is this change basically going to screw all the people that bought a box in the past few years?
Also... given that this is a PnP standard for integration into TV sets themselves, I wonder if the satelitte industry is going to follow suit itself. I sure as hell hope not... as my quasi legal DirectTV box no doubt isnt going to get that much support;-).
Although, it is kinda good to see a standard ratified... HDTV has been delayed wayyyyyy too long. Im sick of seeing "HDTV Ready" boxes... knowing fullwell, that means if I want HDTV, im going to have to buy a 300$ tuner sometime down the road. It has been what has prevented me from buying a nice 42+ inch display all these years... well... that and lack of cash!;-) Hopefully, this goes through... but also, hopefully there will be some form of backward compatibility so everyones current cable and satelitte boxes still work.
In an age where clusters are becoming more prevalent for parallel computing I've often wondered where the parallel processor was. How about you?"
I may be thinking in different terms than you, but my understanding of future chip design is, that multiple CPU cores on one chip, is basically becoming the norm. To some extent, is this what hyper threading does on the newest Intel chips? I recall also reading the PPC G5 chip in the newer Mac's has multiple processor cores.
So, to answer... where are parallel processor's? Try best buy!;-)
I cant help but feel this is another one of those "just in case" type ban's. As such, there is probrably no issues with using cell phones or laptops in an air plane... but since so much is at stake... we might as well ban them.
Sorta like how your supposed to turn off your cell phone when pumping gasoline. This is based of an urban legend that the electronic feedback of the phone is sufficent to ignite petrol fumes. Yet... still we have warnings at all pumps, even though there has *NEVER* been a fire based on cell phones at the gas stations.
I figure its one of those better safe then sorry type stances. Although... this particular case, pisses people off to no end. Thing is, last time I flew I was allowed to use my laptop, except during take-off and landing... so this may be a airline to airline based rule.
Now, take the same piece of string, and double the length? What is the end result... you either need to spin it faster, or put more weight on the end to keep in tight. Now, double the length again and repeat... on and on and on. You will notice that as the length of the string increases, so does the effort required to keep it tight. You either have to keep adding weight... or increasing the velocity. Now given that the earth spins at a constant speed... what choice have you got? Adding more weight is about the only option.
The other end would be attached to an orbiting object in space acting as a counterweight, the momentum of which would keep the cable taut and allow vehicles to climb up and down it.
Now... what the hell is the other object going to be that is going to act as a counterweight? Wouldnt the damned thing need to be comprable in mass to the earth... or atleast the earth, minus the weight change due to the rotation?
Thats one bloody huge paperweight!
Sorry this sounds like pure sci/fi... glad to see nasa isnt wasting taxpayers money anymore...
The "From" address is spoofed... but the source can still be easily identified in most cases. This is the area it would be enforced at... but hey... I dont really know the specifics, its just an idea.
Yes, I missed out on the math error... I know im going to hear about it... again... and again... and again...:) This is slashdot, right?;)
In regards to the governement handling it... I agree 110%... in all things, I generally want less government involvement, not more. I would think the only feasible way to "tax" email... would be for the charge to be from the worlds telco's. I should imagine a technology could somewhat equivelant to how phone calls are billed now, could be applied to email. That said... I would never *EVER* want to see the billing structure be comprable to, say, long distance providers now...
Oops... lets go with 1 10th a cent then... same basic idea applies, and truly I dont think its a stupid idea... One of the fundimental flaws with free is that its easily abused... thats why you get 50 times more spam in your email then you do in your snail mail.
Actually... it is more a linux-esque type article. MS makes its billions off catering to the slobering masses... Linux is the soceity that tends to bash users for being too stupid to do anything... The whole "lets license users" type argument for surfing is a complete tech-elitest typical bs approach. Then again, you idiot proof something, the world builds a better idiot. The real answer is most likely to make a more modern, effective and adaptive education system... both in traditional school years, and there after.
That said, I agree... the article is total flame bait. Oh well.
Actually, thats not so bad of an idea... well... anyways the taxing email part.
Although, not for the reasons you mentioned... having say a 1 cent tax per email cent, would perhaps be one of the only solutions to solving spam. In a year... I send perhaps... 7300 emails ( figuring 20 per day )... so... in the long run, It would cost me about 7.30$ a year...
Now just think about how much money this would cost spammers??? It would cut back *ALOT* on spam, at least IMHO.
Granted... this was an off topic post... but you started it!:)
... having done some 3d modelling in the past, I feel sooooooo sorry for those sorry son's of a bitch, that have to model dali's visions in Maya! Even starring at his paintings give me a headache... I can just picture trying to recreate them... in 3d of all things. Poor poor bastards!;)
Extensibility via plugins is a defacto standard in the industry... outside of Internet Explorer... will this impact other applications? WHere is the line drawn?
Will windows explorer extensions be liable aswell? What about 3d Studio max plugins, or the various ERP type applications that make use of plugins?
The vague or generalistic patents have to stop!!! They really have to stop letting judges and patient offices impede the development of technology! The law is killing inovation. Just because Microsoft is the victim in this case, doesnt make the lawsuit just that screwed up!!! And how the hell are they coming up with the cash amounts from these lawsuits anyways!?!?!
When did Maya gain that ability? I havent seen it in action since version 4, so it may be a new feature. If thats the case, thats very cool...
As to setting up a large scale scene, your right, you need a meatier machine to render more complex scenes ( meaning render to screen as opposed to render to file... ). However, I would argue the gain you would get from moving from a highend consumer GeForce to a Quadro, would be negligable. I would say spending that money on more RAM, or a better CPU ( such as an Intel with HyperThreading or in the future, and Opteron ) would be money better spent. The gain is just way too minimal to justify the cost difference. We did a test inhouse comparing the GeForce to the Quadro, for use this Catia and ProEngineer at my work place, and saw no real functional difference... perhaps your millage may vary. Btw... when we are talking about IGES files, we are talking about ULTRA dense meshes in this case... well in excess of a million polygons.
Then again, if money is no object, I suppose any gain is a gain, right? Im not saying that the Quadro isnt faster... it probrably is. I just dont think its enough faster for *most* people in the industry to justify the additional expense. That said... I would love to have one!;)
Sorry... dont mean to cater to the trendy aspects of soceity, but wouldnt you feel like an idiot talking into this thing in a crowded room? You gotta admit, for a good chunk of people ( the majority? ), a cellphone isnt just a tool, its also a piece of fashion. Why do you think they sell custom vanity face plates, or branded ( Gap, Roots, etc... ) cell phones. This one though... hell, im a geek and it still screams geek to me !!!:)
Not to mention that fact that you have to remove the battery to put the games in?!?!?! Um.......... how the hell did that idea make it out of engineering. That one design failure alone, leads me to believe that Nokia isnt that serious about entering the gaming market... either that, or the are just not meant to be there!
Actually, the video card has absolutely *ZIP* to do with the actual rendering.
To my knowledge the only big difference ( in silicon ) between a Quadro and GeForce is that the Quadro had hardware for accelerating line rendering... and you used to be able to patch a GeForce with software to make it equivalent to a Quadro... and benchmarks would show the results... wish I had the link now, but it was called SoftQuadro I believe... havent used it myself though ( never had the need ), so this is all hearsay...
Yes, but realworld vs benchmarks just doesnt work in this regard. I can run Maya or Max ( probrably the two most common 3d apps today ), in OpenGL accelerated mode at full speed for the most part at 1600x1200, without any slowdown.
So really... whats 3 times faster then fast enough??? Also... "some" benchmarks... well... beyond texture throughput, and raw triangle blit speed, nothing really matters, in the current generation of 3d apps, anyways...
I have never understood how this breed of cards exists to this day. Really... the difference between a "stock" GeForce and a workstation class Quadro GeForce... just doesnt justify the cost difference anymore.
When you go back about 3 or 4 years ago... when you contrasted a Oxygen video card, or a FireGL vs a TNT or 3DFX card, you could see where the extra money went. But now, todays commerical grade video cards are more then capable. In fact, alot of people I know that work as graphic artists, use traditional Radeon or GeForce 4's in their workstation machines. Outside of say... Pixar, I just dont understand people buying the workstation class cards.
Now, to go back to this arguement... its nice to see that nVidia managed to get rid of the vacumn cleaner sized fan!
Seeing as that moron needs to come up with the 82 billion for his re-election campaign... errrr... I mean, war on terrorism. Now all they need to do is sell certification at a million dollars a piece to 82,000 companies!
Sorry for the flamebait... this stuff, Bush at the top of the list, just get me pissed! If your a democrate... you may atleast find the idea funny !;-)
Slashdot Mirror
Wish that was the case... but im with Rogers... which basically has the cable monopoly in Eastern Canada. They charge 8.95 a month for digital cable ( which is basically the setop box rental ) or 14.95 $ / month for HD capable digital cable.
Then again, anyone who has dealt with Rogers for either CableTV or Internet... or even cellular... knows their a right set of bastards!
They want to cut out MythTV, Tivo, splitters, H-cards, and cable descramblers. It's becoming too easy to get at the current data, so they want a change. with the analog system working (fairly) well as is, why else would they create a new 'standard' for the digital system? It certainly isn't in the interest of the consumer.
Although I agree with alot of what you are saying, I believe you are missing the point on the above statements. The primary purpose for the "open" standard is so that hardware ( namingly TV's ) can start encorporating TV tuners ( like they have now with analog ) right into the tv, as to remove the setop boxes. Go shopping for HD tv's and find out how many dont have tuners built in? Thats because there is no major standard on how signals are broadcast... I for one like the idea, as I could get rid of my RCA direcTV box... or could apply for digital HD ready cable, without having to add, yet another decoder box, to my entertainment system.
The other part of this is, I believe the FCC has a mandate for all signals to start being broadcast in High Definition, within the next 3 or 4 years. In order to meet that criteria, the industry is going to have to standardize on the format those broadcasts are going to be in. I imagine the TV industry went through this before with the analog signals, and then the switch to colour broadcasting... but thats so far before my time I dont remember it. Things get a bit more complicated once you start talking digital vs analog, as now you also have things like security, codecs, etc... to consider aswell.
All that said... I dont doubt in a heartbeat that the major cable companies and satellite companies would *LOVE* to kill of TIVO like devices. I just dont believe that is their motivation behind this standard.
If they are standardizing digital cable to use a certain set of codecs, encryption, etc... What will happen to all of the people who have purchased set top boxes today? I realize this is just the definition of the format to use for TV tuner cards, but as a result, you have to figure the change in format is going to impact all of the people currently using a digital set top box today. I myself almost purchased a Scientific Atlanta set top cable box, as the monthly cable fees my provider charged ( Rogers ) for the box rental were insane. Is this change basically going to screw all the people that bought a box in the past few years?
;-).
;-) Hopefully, this goes through... but also, hopefully there will be some form of backward compatibility so everyones current cable and satelitte boxes still work.
Also... given that this is a PnP standard for integration into TV sets themselves, I wonder if the satelitte industry is going to follow suit itself. I sure as hell hope not... as my quasi legal DirectTV box no doubt isnt going to get that much support
Although, it is kinda good to see a standard ratified... HDTV has been delayed wayyyyyy too long. Im sick of seeing "HDTV Ready" boxes... knowing fullwell, that means if I want HDTV, im going to have to buy a 300$ tuner sometime down the road. It has been what has prevented me from buying a nice 42+ inch display all these years... well... that and lack of cash!
In an age where clusters are becoming more prevalent for parallel computing I've often wondered where the parallel processor was. How about you?"
;-)
I may be thinking in different terms than you, but my understanding of future chip design is, that multiple CPU cores on one chip, is basically becoming the norm. To some extent, is this what hyper threading does on the newest Intel chips? I recall also reading the PPC G5 chip in the newer Mac's has multiple processor cores.
So, to answer... where are parallel processor's? Try best buy!
I cant help but feel this is another one of those "just in case" type ban's. As such, there is probrably no issues with using cell phones or laptops in an air plane... but since so much is at stake... we might as well ban them.
Sorta like how your supposed to turn off your cell phone when pumping gasoline. This is based of an urban legend that the electronic feedback of the phone is sufficent to ignite petrol fumes. Yet... still we have warnings at all pumps, even though there has *NEVER* been a fire based on cell phones at the gas stations.
I figure its one of those better safe then sorry type stances. Although... this particular case, pisses people off to no end. Thing is, last time I flew I was allowed to use my laptop, except during take-off and landing... so this may be a airline to airline based rule.
Now, take the same piece of string, and double the length? What is the end result... you either need to spin it faster, or put more weight on the end to keep in tight. Now, double the length again and repeat... on and on and on. You will notice that as the length of the string increases, so does the effort required to keep it tight. You either have to keep adding weight... or increasing the velocity. Now given that the earth spins at a constant speed... what choice have you got? Adding more weight is about the only option.
The other end would be attached to an orbiting object in space acting as a counterweight, the momentum of which would keep the cable taut and allow vehicles to climb up and down it.
Now... what the hell is the other object going to be that is going to act as a counterweight? Wouldnt the damned thing need to be comprable in mass to the earth... or atleast the earth, minus the weight change due to the rotation?
Thats one bloody huge paperweight!
Sorry this sounds like pure sci/fi... glad to see nasa isnt wasting taxpayers money anymore...
That perhaps is true... although the fee / tax, could easily be the catalyst that causes the protocol to implemented.
Once again... its just an idea... I dont have the answers... just a possible solution to what is definatly a problem...
The "From" address is spoofed... but the source can still be easily identified in most cases. This is the area it would be enforced at... but hey... I dont really know the specifics, its just an idea.
I agree... the current mail protocol would have to be replaced...
But, I dont think thats such a bad idea... lots of things need fixing anyways...
Yes, I missed out on the math error... I know im going to hear about it... again... and again... and again... :) This is slashdot, right? ;)
In regards to the governement handling it... I agree 110%... in all things, I generally want less government involvement, not more. I would think the only feasible way to "tax" email... would be for the charge to be from the worlds telco's. I should imagine a technology could somewhat equivelant to how phone calls are billed now, could be applied to email. That said... I would never *EVER* want to see the billing structure be comprable to, say, long distance providers now...
Oops... lets go with 1 10th a cent then... same basic idea applies, and truly I dont think its a stupid idea... One of the fundimental flaws with free is that its easily abused... thats why you get 50 times more spam in your email then you do in your snail mail.
Well, of course some would have to enforce it... most likely the telcos ( on a global scope ) would be able to enforce a 1 cent tax.
Actually... it is more a linux-esque type article. MS makes its billions off catering to the slobering masses... Linux is the soceity that tends to bash users for being too stupid to do anything... The whole "lets license users" type argument for surfing is a complete tech-elitest typical bs approach. Then again, you idiot proof something, the world builds a better idiot. The real answer is most likely to make a more modern, effective and adaptive education system... both in traditional school years, and there after.
That said, I agree... the article is total flame bait. Oh well.
Actually, thats not so bad of an idea... well... anyways the taxing email part.
... so... in the long run, It would cost me about 7.30$ a year...
:)
Although, not for the reasons you mentioned... having say a 1 cent tax per email cent, would perhaps be one of the only solutions to solving spam. In a year... I send perhaps... 7300 emails ( figuring 20 per day )
Now just think about how much money this would cost spammers??? It would cut back *ALOT* on spam, at least IMHO.
Granted... this was an off topic post... but you started it!
... having done some 3d modelling in the past, I feel sooooooo sorry for those sorry son's of a bitch, that have to model dali's visions in Maya! Even starring at his paintings give me a headache... I can just picture trying to recreate them... in 3d of all things. Poor poor bastards! ;)
At least it wasnt escher!
Extensibility via plugins is a defacto standard in the industry... outside of Internet Explorer... will this impact other applications? WHere is the line drawn?
Will windows explorer extensions be liable aswell? What about 3d Studio max plugins, or the various ERP type applications that make use of plugins?
The vague or generalistic patents have to stop!!! They really have to stop letting judges and patient offices impede the development of technology! The law is killing inovation. Just because Microsoft is the victim in this case, doesnt make the lawsuit just that screwed up!!! And how the hell are they coming up with the cash amounts from these lawsuits anyways!?!?!
When did Maya gain that ability? I havent seen it in action since version 4, so it may be a new feature. If thats the case, thats very cool...
;)
As to setting up a large scale scene, your right, you need a meatier machine to render more complex scenes ( meaning render to screen as opposed to render to file... ). However, I would argue the gain you would get from moving from a highend consumer GeForce to a Quadro, would be negligable. I would say spending that money on more RAM, or a better CPU ( such as an Intel with HyperThreading or in the future, and Opteron ) would be money better spent. The gain is just way too minimal to justify the cost difference. We did a test inhouse comparing the GeForce to the Quadro, for use this Catia and ProEngineer at my work place, and saw no real functional difference... perhaps your millage may vary. Btw... when we are talking about IGES files, we are talking about ULTRA dense meshes in this case... well in excess of a million polygons.
Then again, if money is no object, I suppose any gain is a gain, right? Im not saying that the Quadro isnt faster... it probrably is. I just dont think its enough faster for *most* people in the industry to justify the additional expense. That said... I would love to have one!
Sorry... dont mean to cater to the trendy aspects of soceity, but wouldnt you feel like an idiot talking into this thing in a crowded room? You gotta admit, for a good chunk of people ( the majority? ), a cellphone isnt just a tool, its also a piece of fashion. Why do you think they sell custom vanity face plates, or branded ( Gap, Roots, etc... ) cell phones. This one though... hell, im a geek and it still screams geek to me !!! :)
Not to mention that fact that you have to remove the battery to put the games in?!?!?! Um.......... how the hell did that idea make it out of engineering. That one design failure alone, leads me to believe that Nokia isnt that serious about entering the gaming market... either that, or the are just not meant to be there!
Actually, the video card has absolutely *ZIP* to do with the actual rendering.
To my knowledge the only big difference ( in silicon ) between a Quadro and GeForce is that the Quadro had hardware for accelerating line rendering... and you used to be able to patch a GeForce with software to make it equivalent to a Quadro... and benchmarks would show the results... wish I had the link now, but it was called SoftQuadro I believe... havent used it myself though ( never had the need ), so this is all hearsay...
Have you seen the first generation's GeForce FX's fan? Believe it or not, the damned thing is actually alot smaller and more quite! ;)
Yes, but realworld vs benchmarks just doesnt work in this regard. I can run Maya or Max ( probrably the two most common 3d apps today ), in OpenGL accelerated mode at full speed for the most part at 1600x1200, without any slowdown.
So really... whats 3 times faster then fast enough??? Also... "some" benchmarks... well... beyond texture throughput, and raw triangle blit speed, nothing really matters, in the current generation of 3d apps, anyways...
I have never understood how this breed of cards exists to this day. Really... the difference between a "stock" GeForce and a workstation class Quadro GeForce... just doesnt justify the cost difference anymore.
When you go back about 3 or 4 years ago... when you contrasted a Oxygen video card, or a FireGL vs a TNT or 3DFX card, you could see where the extra money went. But now, todays commerical grade video cards are more then capable. In fact, alot of people I know that work as graphic artists, use traditional Radeon or GeForce 4's in their workstation machines. Outside of say... Pixar, I just dont understand people buying the workstation class cards.
Now, to go back to this arguement... its nice to see that nVidia managed to get rid of the vacumn cleaner sized fan!
RIAA and PR in the same scentance?
WIthout the word negative in there?
Someone tell me hell froze over!
Seeing as that moron needs to come up with the 82 billion for his re-election campaign... errrr... I mean, war on terrorism. Now all they need to do is sell certification at a million dollars a piece to 82,000 companies!
;-)
Sorry for the flamebait... this stuff, Bush at the top of the list, just get me pissed! If your a democrate... you may atleast find the idea funny !