I still have my doubts about this - who is going to pay for all those realtime MPEG4 compressors that would need to be placed throughout the country at each local affiliate? I would imagine that it would need to be compressed there (as it is now, into MPEG2), rather than transmitted uncompressed to DirecTV's uplink facility - which I doubt anyone would do/want to pay for.
In the short term, I'm betting that they will just recompress the existing MPEG2 they currently receive.
I'm all for competition (especially to keep the cable companies in check), but I think the bandwidth limitations that satellite companies face are going to result in poor quality low-bitrate signals being marketed as "high definition".
Didn't mean to state that - but DVR features are not available for DirectTV's MPEG4-encoded channels yet.
I'm going to wait until the quality has been determined (I still think that satellite providers have more of a financial incentive to reduce bitrates than cable providers do), and HD-DVRs are available (preferably TiVo-based, but I'm not holding my breath on that one)
Has anyone had a chance to personally see MPEG4-encoded HD? Is the quality acceptable compared to the original MPEG2 stream?
I have to imagine that by recompressing into MPEG4 from MPEG2 (the format the signals are provided in, at least currently), some quality would be lost. The question is, how much quality is DirectTV prepared to sacrifice in order to say that they have the entire country covered with HD locals?
Personally, I'm sticking with cable because I want the original MPEG2 stream passed through without any recompression, and I don't want to watch TV without DVR features.
My problem with DRM is that I fear that if people accept any form of DRM, there will no longer be any ownership offered - all of the content producers will move to "rental" models, where you have to keep paying and paying. Microsoft clearly wants to do this with their software (so they can continue to collect cash even without releasing new products), and I'm sure content providers like the MPAA and RIAA love the idea too.
I might accept DRM if/when there is a vibrant competitive market of high-quality content providers, rather than a few all-powerful monopolies.
If the cable companies are allowed to have proprietary (non-cablecard) boxes, what motivation do they have to open everything up to cablecards in other equipment? Right now, because it's not a mandatory part of the STB, cablecard is crippled (one-way signal being the biggest deficiency). I for one think that this mandate is a great way to provide meaningful consumer choice. Nothing is wrong with the cable companies offering leased boxes, but it's not of for them to lock all the cool features into those boxes so that third-party equipment is always inferior.
Since there seem to be quite a few postings that are negative on plasma display technology, here are some reasons to purchase a Plasma TV over an LCD TV:
- Display size. Plasma is available in much larger sizes, and is cheaper at the 42" size than LCD.
- Black level. Good plasma (i.e. those based on Panasonic glass) panels display a darker black. LCD blacks often are very bright gray - especially noticable when viewing in a dark room.
- Viewing angle. LCDs usually offer a narrower viewing angle than plasma displays.
LCDs do have several advantages, IMO:
- Resolution. Some displays even support 1080p resolution.
- Less prone to burn-in. I have heard that over a long period of time, the dyes in LCD panels can burn in, but it is such a long time it is not a factor for most users.
- Lower power consumption and heat.
I have to say this stinks. IBM was one of the few PC makers that endeavored to build innovative, high-quality products (like the T42 I'm typing this on). The others (Dell, HP/Compaq to name a few) appear to be focusing on building cheap plastic boxes at the lowest possible price. I hope whoever buys the business doesn't forget that there is a high-end segment of the market that cares about more than just price. At least we still have Apple...
As a skydiver, once you exit the airplane (usually a plane traveling at around 100 mph) you begin to accelerate to terminal velocity which is around 120 mph. During this time, you will feel some sensation of acceleration, but it is certainly not zero-g. Your velocity vector simply moves from forward (where it was when you were on the plane) to downwards (gravity pulling on you now that there's no plane/wings to resist it). After about 10 seconds, the air resistance will fully balance the force of gravity and you will be at terminal velocity and no longer accelerating. Of course if you change your body position your terminal velocity can change (lower surface area, same mass = higher terminal velocity), but it's never truly zero G. After 120+ jumps, I don't even feel like I'm falling anymore. It's more like floating or flying.
In an airplane the air is still inside, so you can experience true zero G like astronauts do.
Not saying skydiving isn't fun (it is!) but it's a different thing from parabolic flights.
In general, I like the idea of the free market economy and competition acting to drive innovation. The problem in the wireless industry is that there is a finite RF spectrum allocated, and Verizon and AT&T Wireless have the best part of it (the 800 MHz band). With so few choices, it's hard for consumers to clearly vote against bad practices like this with their dollars.
Because the government allocates spectrum, I think it is fair for the government to tell carriers that they cannot limit the functionality of the devices used on said spectrum. That would be good for the consumer and good for innovation.
Locked proprietary cellular systems are good for companies like Verizon in the short term, but it is hard to argue that this model is in the best interests of the consumer.
When I was hired by my current employer, they asked me to sign the same sort of agreement - stating that they owned anything that I developed before employment (if not named), and anything I developed during my employment. I balked and they quickly produced an alternate employment agreement which granted me rights to anything I developed on my own time and without using company equipment.
I suspect that this is fairly common practice. If you don't ask, they certainly won't offer (except in California, where I believe this is the law)
I wasn't defending Apples use of DRM - I just like the idea of competition even if it involves reverse engineering (think "IBM clones"). If companies are allowed to lock competitors out of their proprietary systems by legal means, that hurts competition, which is bad.
I don't like DRM in any form - but I must say that at least Apple has offered the least bad flavor of DRM yet (you can burn to CD, which strips off the DRM if you really want to do something they don't allow). For me this means I can (for example) use iTMS tracks as soundtracks to videos I produce in Final Cut Express - something that is fair use (they're my home videos) but that the DRM doesn't allow.
"Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store."
I believe the article was actually trying to say that the only DRM format that the iPod supported was the proprietary FairPlay scheme used exclusively by the iTunes Music store. I don't think they were asserting that it couldn't play open MP3/AIFF files (we all know that it can).
I feel dirty not just for rooting for Real (but I must because I believe reverse engineering should be legal, and like the idea of open systems, standards and a competitive marketplace), but also because what Real has done is reverse-engineered FairPlay in order to IMPOSE DRM restrictions and prevent customers of their music store from fairly using the music files they have purchased.
The difference (thinking like the MPAA) is that the internet makes it a lot easier and more convenient to pass content around. It does not make it any more possible than it was before. Just like MP3 versus audio tape. Both made it possible for average consumers to share recordings with friends, but MP3 (and especially P2P networks) made it easy and more convenient than going out to the local Sam Goody.
I think the issue here is that the MPAA/NFL want to make sure it doesn't become more convenient for the average consumer to call a friend with TiVo and get copies of movies/NFL Sunday Ticket games than to buy them.
I disagree with the idea of limiting technological progress to serve existing business models, but they aren't completely crazy. (And yes, I've modded my TiVo and can extract video very easily.)
When will companies learn that we do not want DRM, or custom formats.
When we don't buy them. If there's one thing big companies can do it's count money. Look at what happened to the Circuit City "DIVX" DRM-crippled DVD rental system, or all of the DRM-heavy music rental services like PressPlay - good riddance!
I completely agree with the other comments here that in this case, the use of the black box is justified. In the same way that forensic analysis of the accident scene is justified (and that, in many cases, can reveal the speed of the cars involved in a crash). This driver was clearly being reckless.
The problem, as I see it, is twofold: 1. Car manufacturers are putting this technology in cars without telling consumers about it. That's not cool, and it might even discourage people from doing stupid things behind the wheel if they knew there was more potential for getting nailed if they ended up in an accident as a result.
2. This same technology could evolve into a monitoring system to generate revenue for local governments. Just like the gatso cameras in the UK which have little to to with safety, and everything to do with sticking drivers with huge fines for breaking arbitrary rules - which appear in some cases to be designed specifically to be broken! And if this were to happen, it would be easy to imagine insurance companies requiring that all cars contain these devices in order to get reasonable rates. It then becomes an easy option for municipalities to raise additional revenue by lowering speed limits unnecessarily - and this is not what speed limits are for!
Ultimately, speed versus safety is a tradeoff - if we wanted to be perfectly safe, we wouldn't drive at all - but we have collectively decided that the higher speeds afforded by driving cars is worth the additional risk over walking. If we allow this tradeoff to be made by localities, and give them a powerful tool to make massive profits by setting unreasonably low speed limits, drivers won't like the outcome, and at that point there will be little we can do about it!
When I went to work for my current employer, a New York based tech firm, they presented me with a similar agreement granting them ownership of anything I developed. I said I wasn't comfortable with that and wanted the california law to apply to me. They said fine - and had a revised agreement ready to go. I suspect that this is a common thing, as one of my co-workers said he did the same thing and got the same response.
For those who aren't familiar, California has a law that allows employees to retain rights to IP they develop on their own time without using company equipment.
Slashdot Mirror
I believe we use gaseous diffusion.
I still have my doubts about this - who is going to pay for all those realtime MPEG4 compressors that would need to be placed throughout the country at each local affiliate? I would imagine that it would need to be compressed there (as it is now, into MPEG2), rather than transmitted uncompressed to DirecTV's uplink facility - which I doubt anyone would do/want to pay for.
In the short term, I'm betting that they will just recompress the existing MPEG2 they currently receive.
I'm all for competition (especially to keep the cable companies in check), but I think the bandwidth limitations that satellite companies face are going to result in poor quality low-bitrate signals being marketed as "high definition".
Didn't mean to state that - but DVR features are not available for DirectTV's MPEG4-encoded channels yet.
I'm going to wait until the quality has been determined (I still think that satellite providers have more of a financial incentive to reduce bitrates than cable providers do), and HD-DVRs are available (preferably TiVo-based, but I'm not holding my breath on that one)
Has anyone had a chance to personally see MPEG4-encoded HD? Is the quality acceptable compared to the original MPEG2 stream?
I have to imagine that by recompressing into MPEG4 from MPEG2 (the format the signals are provided in, at least currently), some quality would be lost. The question is, how much quality is DirectTV prepared to sacrifice in order to say that they have the entire country covered with HD locals?
Personally, I'm sticking with cable because I want the original MPEG2 stream passed through without any recompression, and I don't want to watch TV without DVR features.
My problem with DRM is that I fear that if people accept any form of DRM, there will no longer be any ownership offered - all of the content producers will move to "rental" models, where you have to keep paying and paying. Microsoft clearly wants to do this with their software (so they can continue to collect cash even without releasing new products), and I'm sure content providers like the MPAA and RIAA love the idea too.
I might accept DRM if/when there is a vibrant competitive market of high-quality content providers, rather than a few all-powerful monopolies.
If the cable companies are allowed to have proprietary (non-cablecard) boxes, what motivation do they have to open everything up to cablecards in other equipment? Right now, because it's not a mandatory part of the STB, cablecard is crippled (one-way signal being the biggest deficiency). I for one think that this mandate is a great way to provide meaningful consumer choice. Nothing is wrong with the cable companies offering leased boxes, but it's not of for them to lock all the cool features into those boxes so that third-party equipment is always inferior.
Since there seem to be quite a few postings that are negative on plasma display technology, here are some reasons to purchase a Plasma TV over an LCD TV:
- Display size. Plasma is available in much larger sizes, and is cheaper at the 42" size than LCD.
- Black level. Good plasma (i.e. those based on Panasonic glass) panels display a darker black. LCD blacks often are very bright gray - especially noticable when viewing in a dark room.
- Viewing angle. LCDs usually offer a narrower viewing angle than plasma displays.
LCDs do have several advantages, IMO:
- Resolution. Some displays even support 1080p resolution.
- Less prone to burn-in. I have heard that over a long period of time, the dyes in LCD panels can burn in, but it is such a long time it is not a factor for most users.
- Lower power consumption and heat.
I have to say this stinks. IBM was one of the few PC makers that endeavored to build innovative, high-quality products (like the T42 I'm typing this on). The others (Dell, HP/Compaq to name a few) appear to be focusing on building cheap plastic boxes at the lowest possible price. I hope whoever buys the business doesn't forget that there is a high-end segment of the market that cares about more than just price. At least we still have Apple...
I thought graphite was being used as a neutron moderator for the reactor, not for heat transfer?
As a skydiver, once you exit the airplane (usually a plane traveling at around 100 mph) you begin to accelerate to terminal velocity which is around 120 mph. During this time, you will feel some sensation of acceleration, but it is certainly not zero-g. Your velocity vector simply moves from forward (where it was when you were on the plane) to downwards (gravity pulling on you now that there's no plane/wings to resist it). After about 10 seconds, the air resistance will fully balance the force of gravity and you will be at terminal velocity and no longer accelerating. Of course if you change your body position your terminal velocity can change (lower surface area, same mass = higher terminal velocity), but it's never truly zero G. After 120+ jumps, I don't even feel like I'm falling anymore. It's more like floating or flying.
In an airplane the air is still inside, so you can experience true zero G like astronauts do.
Not saying skydiving isn't fun (it is!) but it's a different thing from parabolic flights.
In general, I like the idea of the free market economy and competition acting to drive innovation. The problem in the wireless industry is that there is a finite RF spectrum allocated, and Verizon and AT&T Wireless have the best part of it (the 800 MHz band). With so few choices, it's hard for consumers to clearly vote against bad practices like this with their dollars.
Because the government allocates spectrum, I think it is fair for the government to tell carriers that they cannot limit the functionality of the devices used on said spectrum. That would be good for the consumer and good for innovation.
Locked proprietary cellular systems are good for companies like Verizon in the short term, but it is hard to argue that this model is in the best interests of the consumer.
When I was hired by my current employer, they asked me to sign the same sort of agreement - stating that they owned anything that I developed before employment (if not named), and anything I developed during my employment. I balked and they quickly produced an alternate employment agreement which granted me rights to anything I developed on my own time and without using company equipment.
I suspect that this is fairly common practice. If you don't ask, they certainly won't offer (except in California, where I believe this is the law)
I wasn't defending Apples use of DRM - I just like the idea of competition even if it involves reverse engineering (think "IBM clones"). If companies are allowed to lock competitors out of their proprietary systems by legal means, that hurts competition, which is bad.
I don't like DRM in any form - but I must say that at least Apple has offered the least bad flavor of DRM yet (you can burn to CD, which strips off the DRM if you really want to do something they don't allow). For me this means I can (for example) use iTMS tracks as soundtracks to videos I produce in Final Cut Express - something that is fair use (they're my home videos) but that the DRM doesn't allow.
"Previously, iPod would only play digitally protected songs that carry restrictions and were purchased from Apple's own iTunes music store."
I believe the article was actually trying to say that the only DRM format that the iPod supported was the proprietary FairPlay scheme used exclusively by the iTunes Music store. I don't think they were asserting that it couldn't play open MP3/AIFF files (we all know that it can).
I feel dirty not just for rooting for Real (but I must because I believe reverse engineering should be legal, and like the idea of open systems, standards and a competitive marketplace), but also because what Real has done is reverse-engineered FairPlay in order to IMPOSE DRM restrictions and prevent customers of their music store from fairly using the music files they have purchased.
The difference (thinking like the MPAA) is that the internet makes it a lot easier and more convenient to pass content around. It does not make it any more possible than it was before. Just like MP3 versus audio tape. Both made it possible for average consumers to share recordings with friends, but MP3 (and especially P2P networks) made it easy and more convenient than going out to the local Sam Goody.
I think the issue here is that the MPAA/NFL want to make sure it doesn't become more convenient for the average consumer to call a friend with TiVo and get copies of movies/NFL Sunday Ticket games than to buy them.
I disagree with the idea of limiting technological progress to serve existing business models, but they aren't completely crazy. (And yes, I've modded my TiVo and can extract video very easily.)
When will companies learn that we do not want DRM, or custom formats.
When we don't buy them. If there's one thing big companies can do it's count money. Look at what happened to the Circuit City "DIVX" DRM-crippled DVD rental system, or all of the DRM-heavy music rental services like PressPlay - good riddance!
I completely agree with the other comments here that in this case, the use of the black box is justified. In the same way that forensic analysis of the accident scene is justified (and that, in many cases, can reveal the speed of the cars involved in a crash). This driver was clearly being reckless.
The problem, as I see it, is twofold:
1. Car manufacturers are putting this technology in cars without telling consumers about it. That's not cool, and it might even discourage people from doing stupid things behind the wheel if they knew there was more potential for getting nailed if they ended up in an accident as a result.
2. This same technology could evolve into a monitoring system to generate revenue for local governments. Just like the gatso cameras in the UK which have little to to with safety, and everything to do with sticking drivers with huge fines for breaking arbitrary rules - which appear in some cases to be designed specifically to be broken! And if this were to happen, it would be easy to imagine insurance companies requiring that all cars contain these devices in order to get reasonable rates. It then becomes an easy option for municipalities to raise additional revenue by lowering speed limits unnecessarily - and this is not what speed limits are for!
Ultimately, speed versus safety is a tradeoff - if we wanted to be perfectly safe, we wouldn't drive at all - but we have collectively decided that the higher speeds afforded by driving cars is worth the additional risk over walking. If we allow this tradeoff to be made by localities, and give them a powerful tool to make massive profits by setting unreasonably low speed limits, drivers won't like the outcome, and at that point there will be little we can do about it!
When I went to work for my current employer, a New York based tech firm, they presented me with a similar agreement granting them ownership of anything I developed. I said I wasn't comfortable with that and wanted the california law to apply to me. They said fine - and had a revised agreement ready to go. I suspect that this is a common thing, as one of my co-workers said he did the same thing and got the same response.
For those who aren't familiar, California has a law that allows employees to retain rights to IP they develop on their own time without using company equipment.