I wonder if they said it this way because they actually were hiding that the only way they're fast, is that it'll configure itself and sacrifice performance?
What do you think? They're very fast performing Windows PCs, or very fastly assembled? Having worked in HP tech support, I'd say let's go for the latter. *cough*OEMupTheAss*cough*especiallyInHome Networkin g*cough*
You're looking at "Very Fast Windows PCs," not "Very Fast PCs." Big difference. One has Windows bottlenecking it down. These computers are Very Fast for Windows PCs, granted they could be faster with a barebone OS. Although some may consider it faster to use Windows because of lack-or-low driver support, for example graphic cards usually won't run as fast, granted some are faster.
I know we're all on slashdot, and thus are geeks, but is it really necessary for the rest of the world to understand an article by saying "Through some technical video magic, the background of the robot, not the user, is displayed behind the user's head on the robot screens" instead of "The background of the robot's head is the background of the person in the robot's room, considering the background of the robot is displayed 360 degreese around the victims head?"
I mean, come on! How stupid is the rest of the world?!?
If the victim's head on the robot is shown in the direction the victim's head is facing, unless the room that he/she's in is not showing the image in a life-size (which it is, considering this is total emersion, not 20%-height-leave-room-for-doors-etc emersion) then of course the background will be displayed - and likely blurred from capturing the captured video, but that's not the point.
Yeah, definately that is all that that one minor quote from my entire post demonstrated. In the complete context, however, my post was intended to display the ignorance of the people, who even on slashdot, will succumb to labels such as these. The word cracker is definately more descriptive of the action in view, as it would be cracking a password or cracking security on a system, however I imagine it would be offensive to call white hats "crackers" as it's a derogatory term. Traditionally geeks/nerds will name hackers and crackers as two different crowds, although crackers are just a subset of hackers, but you must consider that the reason people refuse to stick with these is because the term hacker seems more like an elite group, while cracker is degrading. They both work, but you'll never be able to hack the labels to be seperate. As soon as you start hearing the channel 2 news talking about crackers writing the new deadly virus xxy, I'll be willing to drop my stance that this will not change. You can have a group changed, but the World's opinion is what matters.
Btw, before you slam me for calling slashdot readers geeks/nerds as a generalization, please read the title - "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters."
Actually, I read all definitions, including the two by the jargon file which were obviously the source for grinberg.net's definition of a hacker. However, if you think that much of the world is going to go by the Jargon files, you're sadly mistaken. Do you go in to a resturaunt and ask "soup-p(see section on 'Jargon Construction')?" or do you think any sane waiter/waitress will respond to this, even if they know what it means? The Jargon files, although included in dictionary.com, is not really authoritive. The Jargon files are, in definition, a dictionary of slang, and slang is considered 'informal' English because of lack of popularity vs. authority.
How did this get modded insightful? First of all, the true definition of a word goes by the general public, not by a random website quoted under a post. I think dictionary.com is a little more authoritive on the definition of a hacker than Olga Grinberg's public space on the internet.
Sure, hackers are enthusiasts, however this also includes those who are enthusiastic about writing malicious code. Don't be lame and think that just because you don't agree with twelve year old script kiddies using the word you describe yourself with, it means it can't be true. Hacker is a universal term. Not all kernel hackers are evil, and I'm sure there's one or two that do not practice illegal hacking. Not all hackers that use malicious code to enter private systems are bad, either.
For those that don't want to follow the dictionary.com link above, a definition of hacker is as follows:
1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff. 2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file. 3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker.
Consider this case: currently there are four TVs using cable, two computers both on cable internet, and these are all running off of the same coaxle connection to the house (how many houses have multiple lines going out of their house for coaxle, to get more bandwidth?)
Now, considering the source states that coaxle bandwidth limitation is at 34mbps. If Wireless-G is rating at 54mbps, this means that the the 34 mbps can easily be incapsulated within the 802.11g connection.
Stuff to consider: this presentation stated that different uses will be running on different channels - in 802.11b there were 10 channels. I have not researched 802.11g to this extend, but I'll assume it's the same (if not better.) Each channel will be limited to this 54 mbps and therefore can encapsulate 540 mbps data.
More stuff to consider: this will lower bandwidth usage.
The presentation stated that TV channels will use an ATM-like infrastructure, basically each channel that's in use will only be sent out once, and received by any TVs watching it. If one TV is watching channel 2, and another TV suddenly turns on channel 2, then the bandwidth does not change (exempt the bandwidth loss from the channel it was changed from, if not put on from an off state to channel 2.)
Using bandwidth in this manner will open the way for the new usages - VoIP, Video over IP, video on demand, gaming.
Don't forget, that although your computer needs a 1024x768 resolution to look OK, your TV could properly operate at 600x400 and look clearer than the movies you download. Notice how when you plug your computer in to a non-HD-TV it will not be able to display regular fonts? TVs do not have great quality.
I find it offensive that post 5989079 passed my low-set radar (all posts above -1) when it was written four minutes after the article post, which is not enough time for (most) people to rtfa. This person obviously did not - this new system sounds wonderful, including everything being on one bill - I hate the ten bills I pay every month. And this will take bundling to new heights. The encryption will cover other people from stealing your TV - if they happen to decode the encryption, they still won't be able to signal your digital cable box to tell it to open a stream of channel 45 to watch channel 45 when nobody else is, as the device ID would be blocked out until put in, and therefore not able to get free internet either (unless the device ID is cracked)
Evidence..hrm. Ok..
I've noticed this in someone I used to consider a friend. His name is David. Now he likes to throw in occasional blurbs about how he had a really in depth conversation with XXX, hinting that I'm a dumbass for not taking philosophy.
You never said what kind of Evidence. Goooo anecdotal evidence! J00 roool!
I can see it now.
Lawsuites, all over the place.
"They forced me to upgrade my software, and therefore my hardware by officially proclaiming my software the oldest...it was so embarassing"
"They required us to change to newer technology. New operating systems *cough*tryingnottosayit*cough* new coke vending drivers, new everything! It cost my company millions in productivity."
"I walk down the isle of cubicals and all I could see was solitair! It's horrific! Before it was too inconvenient for the employees to lay the cards out on their desktop, but now they have more pixels!"
One satisfied employee: "u c the pc wuld crash 5 mins after i load my programs anywho. i'm better playing solitair. watch my time go DOWN!!"
This is a sad state in corperate affairs..
Or on the other hand, maybe they were avoiding naming a disease ARS.
Some beings might actually want that.
I can hear it now, geek teenagers lonely in need of lovin all over the world:
"I'm going to go get me some ARS today! Cya later!"
Are you implying that there are some people on/. that have had sex? OH MY GOD! (And that's not a sex sound!)
But, uhm. Yeah. You can easily turn an old machine in to a router for ICS. Hell, a local internet cafe seems to be using my old 66 mhz pre-pentium computer just fine! All the other computers work just great (and they're p3's with one or two p2s, of course, the customers generally don't know the difference..) Must note that it's an internet cafe, not a gaming cafe.
"..set a new internet speed record..."
New internet = Internet2
turns in to "..set a Internet2 speed record..."
No it's not cheating, just bad grammar! They should have said "..set an new internet speed record..."
Couldn't AOL just set up a (few hundred) server(s) to weed out as many as they can by determining which email addresses are linked to which unsubscribe links? In other words, every time an email comes to a user through alex@spamportal.net it goes to www.legitsoundingsite.com/unsubscribe?email=whatev er
If they set it up to just weed out enough to make it not overload the servers, and still have the rest going through to the trash like it is now (or like I'd assume it is now, thank God I know enough not to use AOL,) then it should eventually cut down quite a bit. The spam isn't only slowing down their access, and costing them money. It's slowing down ours because of their inability to control their l-users.
Slashdot Mirror
I wonder if they said it this way because they actually were hiding that the only way they're fast, is that it'll configure itself and sacrifice performance?
e Networkin g*cough*
What do you think? They're very fast performing Windows PCs, or very fastly assembled? Having worked in HP tech support, I'd say let's go for the latter.
*cough*OEMupTheAss*cough*especiallyInHom
You're looking at "Very Fast Windows PCs," not "Very Fast PCs." Big difference. One has Windows bottlenecking it down. These computers are Very Fast for Windows PCs, granted they could be faster with a barebone OS. Although some may consider it faster to use Windows because of lack-or-low driver support, for example graphic cards usually won't run as fast, granted some are faster.
I know we're all on slashdot, and thus are geeks, but is it really necessary for the rest of the world to understand an article by saying "Through some technical video magic, the background of the robot, not the user, is displayed behind the user's head on the robot screens" instead of "The background of the robot's head is the background of the person in the robot's room, considering the background of the robot is displayed 360 degreese around the victims head?"
I mean, come on! How stupid is the rest of the world?!?
If the victim's head on the robot is shown in the direction the victim's head is facing, unless the room that he/she's in is not showing the image in a life-size (which it is, considering this is total emersion, not 20%-height-leave-room-for-doors-etc emersion) then of course the background will be displayed - and likely blurred from capturing the captured video, but that's not the point.
Yeah, definately that is all that that one minor quote from my entire post demonstrated. In the complete context, however, my post was intended to display the ignorance of the people, who even on slashdot, will succumb to labels such as these. The word cracker is definately more descriptive of the action in view, as it would be cracking a password or cracking security on a system, however I imagine it would be offensive to call white hats "crackers" as it's a derogatory term. Traditionally geeks/nerds will name hackers and crackers as two different crowds, although crackers are just a subset of hackers, but you must consider that the reason people refuse to stick with these is because the term hacker seems more like an elite group, while cracker is degrading. They both work, but you'll never be able to hack the labels to be seperate. As soon as you start hearing the channel 2 news talking about crackers writing the new deadly virus xxy, I'll be willing to drop my stance that this will not change. You can have a group changed, but the World's opinion is what matters.
Btw, before you slam me for calling slashdot readers geeks/nerds as a generalization, please read the title - "Slashdot: News for nerds, stuff that matters."
Actually, I read all definitions, including the two by the jargon file which were obviously the source for grinberg.net's definition of a hacker. However, if you think that much of the world is going to go by the Jargon files, you're sadly mistaken. Do you go in to a resturaunt and ask "soup-p(see section on 'Jargon Construction')?" or do you think any sane waiter/waitress will respond to this, even if they know what it means? The Jargon files, although included in dictionary.com, is not really authoritive. The Jargon files are, in definition, a dictionary of slang, and slang is considered 'informal' English because of lack of popularity vs. authority.
How did this get modded insightful? First of all, the true definition of a word goes by the general public, not by a random website quoted under a post. I think dictionary.com is a little more authoritive on the definition of a hacker than Olga Grinberg's public space on the internet.
Sure, hackers are enthusiasts, however this also includes those who are enthusiastic about writing malicious code. Don't be lame and think that just because you don't agree with twelve year old script kiddies using the word you describe yourself with, it means it can't be true. Hacker is a universal term. Not all kernel hackers are evil, and I'm sure there's one or two that do not practice illegal hacking. Not all hackers that use malicious code to enter private systems are bad, either.
For those that don't want to follow the dictionary.com link above, a definition of hacker is as follows:
1. One who is proficient at using or programming a computer; a computer buff.
2. One who uses programming skills to gain illegal access to a computer network or file.
3. One who enthusiastically pursues a game or sport: a weekend tennis hacker.
I think you've missed the point on bandwidth.
Consider this case: currently there are four TVs using cable, two computers both on cable internet, and these are all running off of the same coaxle connection to the house (how many houses have multiple lines going out of their house for coaxle, to get more bandwidth?)
Now, considering the source states that coaxle bandwidth limitation is at 34mbps. If Wireless-G is rating at 54mbps, this means that the the 34 mbps can easily be incapsulated within the 802.11g connection.
Stuff to consider: this presentation stated that different uses will be running on different channels - in 802.11b there were 10 channels. I have not researched 802.11g to this extend, but I'll assume it's the same (if not better.) Each channel will be limited to this 54 mbps and therefore can encapsulate 540 mbps data.
More stuff to consider: this will lower bandwidth usage. The presentation stated that TV channels will use an ATM-like infrastructure, basically each channel that's in use will only be sent out once, and received by any TVs watching it. If one TV is watching channel 2, and another TV suddenly turns on channel 2, then the bandwidth does not change (exempt the bandwidth loss from the channel it was changed from, if not put on from an off state to channel 2.)
Using bandwidth in this manner will open the way for the new usages - VoIP, Video over IP, video on demand, gaming.
Don't forget, that although your computer needs a 1024x768 resolution to look OK, your TV could properly operate at 600x400 and look clearer than the movies you download. Notice how when you plug your computer in to a non-HD-TV it will not be able to display regular fonts? TVs do not have great quality.
I find it offensive that post 5989079 passed my low-set radar (all posts above -1) when it was written four minutes after the article post, which is not enough time for (most) people to rtfa. This person obviously did not - this new system sounds wonderful, including everything being on one bill - I hate the ten bills I pay every month. And this will take bundling to new heights. The encryption will cover other people from stealing your TV - if they happen to decode the encryption, they still won't be able to signal your digital cable box to tell it to open a stream of channel 45 to watch channel 45 when nobody else is, as the device ID would be blocked out until put in, and therefore not able to get free internet either (unless the device ID is cracked)
Evidence..hrm. Ok.. I've noticed this in someone I used to consider a friend. His name is David. Now he likes to throw in occasional blurbs about how he had a really in depth conversation with XXX, hinting that I'm a dumbass for not taking philosophy. You never said what kind of Evidence. Goooo anecdotal evidence! J00 roool!
This especially to the important stuff, like pornography.
Damn it..
mod parent down for troll (same person as the parent asked to be modded)
mod parent up for funny
I can see it now. Lawsuites, all over the place. "They forced me to upgrade my software, and therefore my hardware by officially proclaiming my software the oldest...it was so embarassing" "They required us to change to newer technology. New operating systems *cough*tryingnottosayit*cough* new coke vending drivers, new everything! It cost my company millions in productivity." "I walk down the isle of cubicals and all I could see was solitair! It's horrific! Before it was too inconvenient for the employees to lay the cards out on their desktop, but now they have more pixels!" One satisfied employee: "u c the pc wuld crash 5 mins after i load my programs anywho. i'm better playing solitair. watch my time go DOWN!!" This is a sad state in corperate affairs..
Or on the other hand, maybe they were avoiding naming a disease ARS. Some beings might actually want that. I can hear it now, geek teenagers lonely in need of lovin all over the world: "I'm going to go get me some ARS today! Cya later!"
Sorry.. wait.
/. that have had sex? OH MY GOD! (And that's not a sex sound!)
Condom?
What's that?..
Are you implying that there are some people on
But, uhm. Yeah. You can easily turn an old machine in to a router for ICS. Hell, a local internet cafe seems to be using my old 66 mhz pre-pentium computer just fine! All the other computers work just great (and they're p3's with one or two p2s, of course, the customers generally don't know the difference..) Must note that it's an internet cafe, not a gaming cafe.
I didn't say it's an internet that replaces the old internet. That would make it THE new internet. However, I said a(n) new internet
"..set a new internet speed record ..."
New internet = Internet2
turns in to "..set a Internet2 speed record ..."
No it's not cheating, just bad grammar! They should have said "..set an new internet speed record ..."
Now now kiddies, have we forgotten that this be on Internet 2? If we all had access to it, it wouldn't be special anymore.
Couldn't AOL just set up a (few hundred) server(s) to weed out as many as they can by determining which email addresses are linked to which unsubscribe links? In other words, every time an email comes to a user through alex@spamportal.net it goes to www.legitsoundingsite.com/unsubscribe?email=whatev er
If they set it up to just weed out enough to make it not overload the servers, and still have the rest going through to the trash like it is now (or like I'd assume it is now, thank God I know enough not to use AOL,) then it should eventually cut down quite a bit. The spam isn't only slowing down their access, and costing them money. It's slowing down ours because of their inability to control their l-users.