It's easy to turn instant off, but in doing that they've not made it possible to turn auto-suggest off like you used to be able to. That is one of the complaints in this thread.
The eternal cry of the power or semi-power user is that if you're going to add another feature, make sure you can turn it off. While granting this wish is not always wise, I think you should at least not remove previous options to turn other things off.
I quite like the idea of the password being the SSID name rather than 'free'. I think it's easier to adhere to (don't need to worry about capitalisation) and more likely to be adhered to as a 'standard' by all the random coffee shops who are out of their depth as it is.
Yes it does. Although you start out your session by connecting to the network with one password for everyone, your computer then negotiates an individual password for your connection to the wireless router. This means that you cannot see other people's traffic.
The argument by Roberti is not one of defense, meaning that Chris or others are wrong, it is one of problem-stating. Yes, these issues exist, but you simply target your attack/interest to deal with them.
The data on my mandated RFID passport isn't obscure and if you want it, you need only wait at the airport for me. Personally, I have an RFID-shielding wallet, but many don't.
Even for obscure information, there can be places where many people with such RFIDs come together - whether at the subway, shopping centre, airport, school, workplace etc.
Once you know where people will be, short range is a lot less of a problem.
Nonsense. There are no rules that the BBC has to follow other than those that every broadcaster has to follow. It's also far from being a mouthpiece for the government. It is not a state broadcaster.
Sorry I mistook some of the numbers needed for the calculation and your calculations are correct (forgot the size of the vestigal side band). However, In my explanation I wasn't trying to say that oversampling or square/non square pixels improved the situation. What I was trying to say is that if you are going to sample each signal at its native resolution then show it on a computer, you're not going to get the right aspect picture. Best to oversample it to start with than stretch it later. I was also trying to say that Apple's choice of resolution isn't a bad one for TVs and I believe that still to be true. Cheers.
720 comes from the conversion of PAL and NTSC formats to one digital format. PAL has the highest bandwidth of 5.5MHz, so using nyquist, to sample that you need to sample at 5.5*2.2=12.1Mhz (2.2 to account for filter roll off). The closest multiple of NTSC and PAL frequencies to accomodate 12.1 is 13.5MHz.
NTSC has the longest active line of 53.333us. Sampling that time at 13.5MHz means taking samples lasting for 1/13.5e6. There are 53.555e-6/(1/13.5e6) = 720.
This means that digital video has the bandwidth to cope with PAL and the resolution to catch all of the NTSC's active line.
-- 640x480 comes from the fact that there are approximately 480 vertical lines used to show an NTSC picture. If you're going to use 1 pixel to represent a line's height then for a 4:3 picture, you get (480/3)*4 pixels horizontally.
-- To say that NTSC has a maximum resolution of 480x440 is missing the point. We're talking about computers here, that estimation is based on how TVs display things. Whether or not it's true that a TV can display less detail horizontally than it can vertically (despite being wider), that doesn't change the resolution of the video. To correctly sample the video and get it on a computer at full resolution, you at the very least need a 4:3 ratio of pixels for a 4:3 transmission!
However this brings me on to the point of this thread. Apple's resolution is fine, since it's only supposed to do one of two things. a) show on an iPod in its native resolution. b) Be shown on a TV. Sure, it's not going to look fantastic, but neither do video recordings. For TV playback the resolution is acceptable.
At home, I use a digital TV receiver to record TV onto my computer without recompressing it. However, since that only has a resolution of 720x576, I still have to blow it up to fit it on my computer screens. For some TV shows it looks great, for others it looks lousy. It's a simple fact that technology has outpaced broadcasting in the sense that even 1080i video isn't going to trouble most computer screens of the future and in many cases, the present.
You will find that jumps in technology and services which are costly, but ultimately the way forward are driven by two things. Large corporations and/or the public.
Recently in the UK there has been a big scramble by ISPs to cut prices, fueled by massive public demand. First, they started cutting calls down to local rates wherever you were, then they did away with subscriptions, then they gave you free off peak access, and ultimately they have been driven to 24/7 free access for a subscription charge. Companies have been falling overthemselves to lower the prices to get more customers.
the same goes for wireless internet. Personally I think that it is an inevitability. But who's going to pay and where are we going to get the addresses from?
It won't happen soon, we need to wait for wireless LANs and the like to take off. Companies will then be looking for areas to expand to, and people will be saying "I can walk around my office with my laptop on a network, why not on the train?". Once big companies see that urge, they will act. Companies will put money behind IP6 (I am assuming only from hernick's that this is necessary) and make it work.
It's simply too early for this technology. Wait 10 years and something will have cropped up.
Although there are many unused UHF channels, many of them (not all) are free because if there was service there, it would cause interference to the other services.
In 10-20 years' time when analogue is switched off however, who knows which channels will be chosen for wirless comms.
Slashdot Mirror
It's easy to turn instant off, but in doing that they've not made it possible to turn auto-suggest off like you used to be able to. That is one of the complaints in this thread.
The eternal cry of the power or semi-power user is that if you're going to add another feature, make sure you can turn it off. While granting this wish is not always wise, I think you should at least not remove previous options to turn other things off.
I quite like the idea of the password being the SSID name rather than 'free'. I think it's easier to adhere to (don't need to worry about capitalisation) and more likely to be adhered to as a 'standard' by all the random coffee shops who are out of their depth as it is.
Yes it does. Although you start out your session by connecting to the network with one password for everyone, your computer then negotiates an individual password for your connection to the wireless router. This means that you cannot see other people's traffic.
The argument by Roberti is not one of defense, meaning that Chris or others are wrong, it is one of problem-stating. Yes, these issues exist, but you simply target your attack/interest to deal with them.
The data on my mandated RFID passport isn't obscure and if you want it, you need only wait at the airport for me. Personally, I have an RFID-shielding wallet, but many don't.
Even for obscure information, there can be places where many people with such RFIDs come together - whether at the subway, shopping centre, airport, school, workplace etc.
Once you know where people will be, short range is a lot less of a problem.
Nonsense. There are no rules that the BBC has to follow other than those that every broadcaster has to follow. It's also far from being a mouthpiece for the government. It is not a state broadcaster.
Sorry I mistook some of the numbers needed for the calculation and your calculations are correct (forgot the size of the vestigal side band).
However, In my explanation I wasn't trying to say that oversampling or square/non square pixels improved the situation. What I was trying to say is that if you are going to sample each signal at its native resolution then show it on a computer, you're not going to get the right aspect picture. Best to oversample it to start with than stretch it later.
I was also trying to say that Apple's choice of resolution isn't a bad one for TVs and I believe that still to be true.
Cheers.
Let's correct a few errors here:
720 comes from the conversion of PAL and NTSC formats to one digital format.
PAL has the highest bandwidth of 5.5MHz, so using nyquist, to sample that you need to sample at 5.5*2.2=12.1Mhz (2.2 to account for filter roll off). The closest multiple of NTSC and PAL frequencies to accomodate 12.1 is 13.5MHz.
NTSC has the longest active line of 53.333us. Sampling that time at 13.5MHz means taking samples lasting for 1/13.5e6. There are
53.555e-6/(1/13.5e6) = 720.
This means that digital video has the bandwidth to cope with PAL and the resolution to catch all of the NTSC's active line.
--
640x480 comes from the fact that there are approximately 480 vertical lines used to show an NTSC picture. If you're going to use 1 pixel to represent a line's height then for a 4:3 picture, you get (480/3)*4 pixels horizontally.
--
To say that NTSC has a maximum resolution of 480x440 is missing the point. We're talking about computers here, that estimation is based on how TVs display things. Whether or not it's true that a TV can display less detail horizontally than it can vertically (despite being wider), that doesn't change the resolution of the video. To correctly sample the video and get it on a computer at full resolution, you at the very least need a 4:3 ratio of pixels for a 4:3 transmission!
However this brings me on to the point of this thread. Apple's resolution is fine, since it's only supposed to do one of two things. a) show on an iPod in its native resolution. b) Be shown on a TV. Sure, it's not going to look fantastic, but neither do video recordings. For TV playback the resolution is acceptable.
At home, I use a digital TV receiver to record TV onto my computer without recompressing it. However, since that only has a resolution of 720x576, I still have to blow it up to fit it on my computer screens. For some TV shows it looks great, for others it looks lousy. It's a simple fact that technology has outpaced broadcasting in the sense that even 1080i video isn't going to trouble most computer screens of the future and in many cases, the present.
You will find that jumps in technology and services which are costly, but ultimately the way forward are driven by two things. Large corporations and/or the public.
Recently in the UK there has been a big scramble by ISPs to cut prices, fueled by massive public demand. First, they started cutting calls down to local rates wherever you were, then they did away with subscriptions, then they gave you free off peak access, and ultimately they have been driven to 24/7 free access for a subscription charge. Companies have been falling overthemselves to lower the prices to get more customers.
the same goes for wireless internet. Personally I think that it is an inevitability. But who's going to pay and where are we going to get the addresses from?
It won't happen soon, we need to wait for wireless LANs and the like to take off. Companies will then be looking for areas to expand to, and people will be saying "I can walk around my office with my laptop on a network, why not on the train?". Once big companies see that urge, they will act. Companies will put money behind IP6 (I am assuming only from hernick's that this is necessary) and make it work.
It's simply too early for this technology. Wait 10 years and something will have cropped up.
Although there are many unused UHF channels, many of them (not all) are free because if there was service there, it would cause interference to the other services.
In 10-20 years' time when analogue is switched off however, who knows which channels will be chosen for wirless comms.