We use Dell, although I can't see that it does us much good. A recently negotiated purchase agreement was supposed to assure us a certain percentage beneath an equivalent computer from competitors (IBM and HP at the time). When they decided to drop monitor prices they neglected to adjust our pricing -- until someone here noticed and we said Hey!
They did cut us a check for the difference, but I think they only did so because they want our future business (which amounts to much more) and were caught at it.
No, its not illegal and yes, the total system price may have met the contractual obligations -- but it just isn't the kind of upstanding behavior that makes me want to do business with them.
What you say in no way invalidates the grandparent's assertion that this is a browser vulnerability, not a linux vulnerability. Its a vulnerability that occurs on all platforms on which the browser runs, which includles linux -- but to single out linux is very misleading.
You could say "its a windows vulnerability" with equal validity. Saying "its a browser vulnerability" is (by Occam's Razor) the best category to classify it as. Many browser vulnerabilities lead to OS exploits (see Internet Explorer), there's no need to suddenly reclassify an application vulnerability as an OS vulnerability.
Hole or not, I think it would. On the other hand I have some experience with CDs and a bb/pellet gun.
Back a few years ago when getting coasters instead of functioning cds was a bit more common and I was buying blanks by the case I had a bit too much time on my hands and did some experimenting. Unfortunately I never wrote down the results, but it was something like this:
1 CD: blow a hole through it 2 CDs: blow a hole through them 3 CDs: blow a hole through them 4 CDs: blow a hole through them 5 CDs: blow a hole through them 6 CDs: bounce off the top disk, but the fourth one has circular section from point of impact completely detached.
I won't comment about NT specific things you said, but your versions and timings of DOS/Win are just flat out wrong. DOS and Windows *never* had a version match. That is to say, Windows 3.1 (about the first usable version of Windows) had absolutely *nothing* to do with DOS 3.1 (other than run on top of it). Heck, by that time the "standard" DOS was MS-DOS 3.2 and there were probably more current DOS versions (I never kept complete track of when they were released).
DOS *6* was out in 1993 if I recall correctly. DOS 6.2 was the last version of standalone DOS. After that DOS and Windows *were* wedded: previously Windows ran as a GUI shell on DOS, mainly to provided a program manager. Starting with Win95, the GUI shell became integral and was started by default. However, you could still drop back to the DOS shell (start in DOS).
I don't recall for certain the DOS version number in Win95, though as MS had already used 6 I expect they went to 7. It certainly was *not* "a combination of DOS/WIndows 4". DOS was already past version 4 and the Win95 GUI was not a separate graphical shell in the same sense as previous versions of windows. Win95 was an outgrowth from and merging of DOS 6 and Win 3.
So, you see, the DOS version numbers were *never* tied to any windows version number.
Your first point is the best and, IMO, the most worrisome. But no one knows what the future holds. Apple makes predictions about what chip speeds they will have and so does Intel. They aren't always right and basically you don't know what is going to be available until it is, well, available.
The third point is just off base. Where I work we operate on a 3-year life cycle and even in cases where there are old systems I don't know what makes you think you can get parts for a 10-year x86 system any easier than a mac. As a matter of fact I recently had that problem with a system used for equipment control (motherboard died, no longer available).
We only have around 10% macs here being by and large a WinXP environment but that has nothing to do with any of the points mentioned (we're vendor locked in to Dell which causes within an order of magnitude as many problems as if we were standardized on Apple).
My experience has been that there are three major groups when it comes to "the cause" of homosexuality. There are the homosexuals, there are the homophobes and there are those who don't really care. The first two groups seem to need to believe that homosexuality is genetic -- at least, those homosexuals and homophobes I've known acted in a manner consistent with this.
For a homosexual, if its genetic then it is "no fault" it just is. For a homophobe there is the chance to identify in a concrete manner (genetic testing!) and they are of course immune. In both cases the belief in genetics seems to be a way to avoid introspection.
Personally, I believe that it is a choice. There might be some minor genetic or biological persuasions, but human sexuality is not digital. It isn't a simple case of hetero/homo/bi-sexual. And I don't think it is set for all time. Which is to say the answer to the question is not a simple yes or no, but when trying to avoid introspection these kinds of simple answers are necessary.
One final note: homosexuality is *exactly* the kind of gene that would be weeded out over milliena because it would give those who exhibited the behavior less opportunity for reproduction. Yes, recessive genes can carry for many generations but the homosexual component of the population is too numerous to fit the bill. And it is very unlikely to be a recent mutation given its widespread practice, probably predating humans (if it were genetic).
Add to this two things: 1) not all societies have frowned on homosexuality (thus removing the argument of social pressure forcing heterosexual relations) and 2) not all societies define homosexuality the same way. The modern American definition of a homosexual would be considered a pervert in many other places because it is between two adult males (ignoring female homosexuality for the moment) whereas our reviled pedophiles -- particularly adult men who prey on juvenile boys -- are trying to practice what has in some places been the only acceptable form of (male) homosexuality.
In sum: nonsense, homosexuality is very unlikely genetic. The genetic argument's main purpose is to avoid introspection (why am I homosexual? why am I heterosexual?). And homosexuality is not a single "thing" which makes it difficult for it to be genetic when in practice it is defined by society.
Why would that negate free will? You are not coerced or forced into any action, the Supreme Being simply knows what it will be. By that logic I can claim that God is not omnipotent because his creations are capable of action. Omnipotence doesn't mean "nothing else has power" and omniscience doesn't mean "controlling all events" it simply means knowing everything.
An omnipotent and omniscient supreme being could create an initial state that would have a known end state without any intervention in between. Depending on the rules this might or might not include all end states, but the coverage is something an omniscient supreme being would know.
I think you're being a bit harsh when you say that they would not ever leave the person. Not that I condone such actions and think well of a person I know who did exactly that. But it is narrow minded to not acknowledge that, depending on the disability, there can be an enormous emotional cost in remaining. You are placing value judgements globally on abandonment and that is what I object to.
Moreover, you hint at this by the qualifying "True Love." What the heck is "true love"? The B.S. you see in fiction and film growing up? Its hard for such fantasies to survive the real world. If its not "true love" is it "false love" or "not love"? Or are there degrees and types of love?
One of the difficulties in the English language is that we have basically two words to express a wide range of possibility: like and love. Modifiers get thrown at them all the time to try and make up for this inadequacy, but unfortunately it is nothing more than a sloppy bandaid.
You can talk of "romantic love" and "platonic love", "filial love" and "physical love" but your aren't even beginning to cover the bases and -- worse -- pigeon-holing.
It's a problem with other emotion words as well: we basically have two of them: "hate" and "dislike", for example. If I got into a fight with my wife and I said, "I hate you" that doesn't necessarily mean I don't love her. In fact, it probably doesn't mean I hate her the way most people outside of that situation would interpret it.
My point is that (particularly) where emotions are involved it isn't on or off: there are graduations and shades that defy the simplicity of any color scale.
The point he was trying to make was an unequivocal appearance would change things a bit. It would, but it wouldn't be scientific evidence unless there were repeatable experiments. Along the lines of "the third time someone takes His name in vain they start vomiting" or "once 1000 prayers were said for a $1000 windfall it happened." They might be difficult to work out in details, but experiments *could* be derived to test these points.
Someone may feel that God is active in the world, but it always seems to follow the "He moves in mysterious ways" part -- which is a euphemistic way of saying it might as well be random chance. Nothing that has been testable. Whether a theory's premise is valid or not, it is worthless (from a scientific point of view) if it does not have a way to be disproven.
Funny how an AC has such definitive knowledge of how the progress of the didn't occur and the miraculous matching of the Dead Sea scrolls to this definitive Bible *and* knows that the true meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls was that they identically matched this Bible.
Funny, I bet you've never actually read any translation of the Dead Sea scrolls, or studied the history of the Bible.
I draw my own artwork and only recently started getting serious about it. I bought a Wacom at the same time. I do some art starting from the Wacom but I find that it *is* more difficult for some specific things than paper & pencil *precisely* because of the tablet/monitor issue. I can rotate the tablet as needed, but I'm still drawing from the monitor. This disconnect may not bother you, but it is an issue. I'm still learning to draw better on the Wacom, but there is no doubt that I am more generally facile with paper & pencil.
Hmmm... some people don't get it. That's okay. But just in case you are actually curious and just a little thick:
1. Post on slashdot claiming x is more secure than y 2. Offer no proof to back claim 3. In fact, spout off a little about security basics and then pointedly ignore suggestions about the most basic security tenant: peer review.
If that's not clear enough I'm afraid I can't help you.
Ah, yes because a product he is currently using should be checked for obvious problems before being used...
Note that he avoids the question of peer review I brought up. Classic case of burying head in the sand. The idea sounds somewhat interesting, but without actual security experts looking at it its pretty meaningless.
Its roughly equivalent to the ocassional math proof that looks really good until it hits peer review. Anything complex has a high probability for error and peer review, while not eliminating error, does help in identifying it -- which can lead to resolving errors.
And what part of keeping the method secret isn't obscurity? Ah well.
thoromyr
Re:Math doesn't add up
on
The Music Man
·
· Score: 1
6 day playlist? When I first got a job I went into debt buying so many cds. I currently have an estimated 24/7 30-day playlist. Set to random its like the radio w/o annoying commercials or dj's or bad reception.
So you're not really trying to rely on security through obscurity? I think it would be easy enough to get the peer review, only it could be a little disheartening or embarrasing if someone else found a glaring flaw...
Wah. Sounds like someone wants to be pedantic. The W3C recommendations are what people have to use as a reference. Being used as a reference makes them standards, even if not ISO standards.
But why am I responding to an AC troll? How you get from "I like and respect Eric Meyer" to "his proclamations about 'web standards' rather deceptive" is amusing.
Obvious possibilities include: 1. Pedant 2. Troll 3. Wishes he had as much attention and respect
I think patents and copyrights should be abolished -- but the reality is that they are here and used to prevent competition. Are you trying to suggest that a "high road" should be taken and Novell give up patents? Should they also dissolve themselves as a company to avoid corporate greed?
It's a (very) little bit like nuclear weapons. You have maybe five countries (companies) with a large nuclear arsenal (patent portfolio). They agree to not use them against each other, but to knock any one else down. Then one of the countries (companies) pledges a defense of someone outside of the power group. While it might satisfy someone's sense of morals if they dismantled their arsenel (portfolio) and crawled under a rock instead, that would have no effect on the remaining powers to continue the situation.
While not a perfect situation in a perfect world, Novell's stance seems to be an improvement over the past. I'm not about to get all warm-and-fuzzy over IBM and Novell, but their behavior has been much more commendable than, say, Microsoft or SCO.
Right, but parent asserted that "he should be controlling it from his speakers" -- which seems nonsensical. I control my PC speakers volume by a volume knob on the speaker, but that is a case where the "receiver" is part of the speaker -- and it applies the volume to both speakers, not just one.
And if you want to give the article writer credit you can suppose that his assertion was about proliferation of remote controls.
Having recently purchased a DVD player and separate receiver I have a comment on that: the salesman convinced my wife to buy both as Sony (I had picked out different brands initially) with the argument that we would only need one remote. However, this is not the case: to actually fully control the Sony DVD player requires the DVD player remote and to control the volume requires the receiver remote.
The last stereo equipment I purchased (now deceased) at least provided a reasonably competent multi-function universal remote that I was able to program for everything except the vcr (which is rarely used anyway).
The point being that for a product like this to be "ready" it needs to provide features consumers want: and most want to avoid a stack of a dozen remotes.
thoromyr
[As a side benefit to having a multi-function remote I was able to program the IRman for it with only minor problems. The TVs multi-remote provided better component separation, but fewer of the buttons I wanted. I have yet to tackle the Sony remotes, but because they are single function there will probably be issues with commands being received by multiple components.]
I'm still trying to figure out how this makes sense. Maybe its because I don't have digital speakers, but I'd assume that the best place to control sound would be at a central point before dispersal to umpteen different speakers.
"Okay, we've got the subwoofer, left and right speakers turned up. Now for the center. Not sure if we need to turn up the rear speakers."
If you want fine-tune control over the volume to each speaker its still preferrable to have a central point to do this from/with.
I believe that he was referring to how long its taken in coming. Lots of infighting as to who was controlling the standard. I haven't checked, but given the use of HDTV in "Until The End of the World" and my recollection of when I saw that -- its probably been 15-20 years.
Slashdot Mirror
We use Dell, although I can't see that it does us much good. A recently negotiated purchase agreement was supposed to assure us a certain percentage beneath an equivalent computer from competitors (IBM and HP at the time). When they decided to drop monitor prices they neglected to adjust our pricing -- until someone here noticed and we said Hey!
They did cut us a check for the difference, but I think they only did so because they want our future business (which amounts to much more) and were caught at it.
No, its not illegal and yes, the total system price may have met the contractual obligations -- but it just isn't the kind of upstanding behavior that makes me want to do business with them.
thoromyr
What you say in no way invalidates the grandparent's assertion that this is a browser vulnerability, not a linux vulnerability. Its a vulnerability that occurs on all platforms on which the browser runs, which includles linux -- but to single out linux is very misleading.
You could say "its a windows vulnerability" with equal validity. Saying "its a browser vulnerability" is (by Occam's Razor) the best category to classify it as. Many browser vulnerabilities lead to OS exploits (see Internet Explorer), there's no need to suddenly reclassify an application vulnerability as an OS vulnerability.
thoromyr
Hole or not, I think it would. On the other hand I have some experience with CDs and a bb/pellet gun.
Back a few years ago when getting coasters instead of functioning cds was a bit more common and I was buying blanks by the case I had a bit too much time on my hands and did some experimenting. Unfortunately I never wrote down the results, but it was something like this:
1 CD: blow a hole through it
2 CDs: blow a hole through them
3 CDs: blow a hole through them
4 CDs: blow a hole through them
5 CDs: blow a hole through them
6 CDs: bounce off the top disk, but the fourth one has circular section from point of impact completely detached.
Isn't spalling fun!
thoromyr
I won't comment about NT specific things you said, but your versions and timings of DOS/Win are just flat out wrong. DOS and Windows *never* had a version match. That is to say, Windows 3.1 (about the first usable version of Windows) had absolutely *nothing* to do with DOS 3.1 (other than run on top of it). Heck, by that time the "standard" DOS was MS-DOS 3.2 and there were probably more current DOS versions (I never kept complete track of when they were released).
DOS *6* was out in 1993 if I recall correctly. DOS 6.2 was the last version of standalone DOS. After that DOS and Windows *were* wedded: previously Windows ran as a GUI shell on DOS, mainly to provided a program manager. Starting with Win95, the GUI shell became integral and was started by default. However, you could still drop back to the DOS shell (start in DOS).
I don't recall for certain the DOS version number in Win95, though as MS had already used 6 I expect they went to 7. It certainly was *not* "a combination of DOS/WIndows 4". DOS was already past version 4 and the Win95 GUI was not a separate graphical shell in the same sense as previous versions of windows. Win95 was an outgrowth from and merging of DOS 6 and Win 3.
So, you see, the DOS version numbers were *never* tied to any windows version number.
thoromyr
Your first point is the best and, IMO, the most worrisome. But no one knows what the future holds. Apple makes predictions about what chip speeds they will have and so does Intel. They aren't always right and basically you don't know what is going to be available until it is, well, available.
The third point is just off base. Where I work we operate on a 3-year life cycle and even in cases where there are old systems I don't know what makes you think you can get parts for a 10-year x86 system any easier than a mac. As a matter of fact I recently had that problem with a system used for equipment control (motherboard died, no longer available).
We only have around 10% macs here being by and large a WinXP environment but that has nothing to do with any of the points mentioned (we're vendor locked in to Dell which causes within an order of magnitude as many problems as if we were standardized on Apple).
thoromyr
My experience has been that there are three major groups when it comes to "the cause" of homosexuality. There are the homosexuals, there are the homophobes and there are those who don't really care. The first two groups seem to need to believe that homosexuality is genetic -- at least, those homosexuals and homophobes I've known acted in a manner consistent with this.
For a homosexual, if its genetic then it is "no fault" it just is. For a homophobe there is the chance to identify in a concrete manner (genetic testing!) and they are of course immune. In both cases the belief in genetics seems to be a way to avoid introspection.
Personally, I believe that it is a choice. There might be some minor genetic or biological persuasions, but human sexuality is not digital. It isn't a simple case of hetero/homo/bi-sexual. And I don't think it is set for all time. Which is to say the answer to the question is not a simple yes or no, but when trying to avoid introspection these kinds of simple answers are necessary.
One final note: homosexuality is *exactly* the kind of gene that would be weeded out over milliena because it would give those who exhibited the behavior less opportunity for reproduction. Yes, recessive genes can carry for many generations but the homosexual component of the population is too numerous to fit the bill. And it is very unlikely to be a recent mutation given its widespread practice, probably predating humans (if it were genetic).
Add to this two things: 1) not all societies have frowned on homosexuality (thus removing the argument of social pressure forcing heterosexual relations) and 2) not all societies define homosexuality the same way. The modern American definition of a homosexual would be considered a pervert in many other places because it is between two adult males (ignoring female homosexuality for the moment) whereas our reviled pedophiles -- particularly adult men who prey on juvenile boys -- are trying to practice what has in some places been the only acceptable form of (male) homosexuality.
In sum: nonsense, homosexuality is very unlikely genetic. The genetic argument's main purpose is to avoid introspection (why am I homosexual? why am I heterosexual?). And homosexuality is not a single "thing" which makes it difficult for it to be genetic when in practice it is defined by society.
thoromyr
Why would that negate free will? You are not coerced or forced into any action, the Supreme Being simply knows what it will be. By that logic I can claim that God is not omnipotent because his creations are capable of action. Omnipotence doesn't mean "nothing else has power" and omniscience doesn't mean "controlling all events" it simply means knowing everything.
An omnipotent and omniscient supreme being could create an initial state that would have a known end state without any intervention in between. Depending on the rules this might or might not include all end states, but the coverage is something an omniscient supreme being would know.
thoromyr
I think you're being a bit harsh when you say that they would not ever leave the person. Not that I condone such actions and think well of a person I know who did exactly that. But it is narrow minded to not acknowledge that, depending on the disability, there can be an enormous emotional cost in remaining. You are placing value judgements globally on abandonment and that is what I object to.
Moreover, you hint at this by the qualifying "True Love." What the heck is "true love"? The B.S. you see in fiction and film growing up? Its hard for such fantasies to survive the real world. If its not "true love" is it "false love" or "not love"? Or are there degrees and types of love?
One of the difficulties in the English language is that we have basically two words to express a wide range of possibility: like and love. Modifiers get thrown at them all the time to try and make up for this inadequacy, but unfortunately it is nothing more than a sloppy bandaid.
You can talk of "romantic love" and "platonic love", "filial love" and "physical love" but your aren't even beginning to cover the bases and -- worse -- pigeon-holing.
It's a problem with other emotion words as well: we basically have two of them: "hate" and "dislike", for example. If I got into a fight with my wife and I said, "I hate you" that doesn't necessarily mean I don't love her. In fact, it probably doesn't mean I hate her the way most people outside of that situation would interpret it.
My point is that (particularly) where emotions are involved it isn't on or off: there are graduations and shades that defy the simplicity of any color scale.
thoromyr
The point he was trying to make was an unequivocal appearance would change things a bit. It would, but it wouldn't be scientific evidence unless there were repeatable experiments. Along the lines of "the third time someone takes His name in vain they start vomiting" or "once 1000 prayers were said for a $1000 windfall it happened." They might be difficult to work out in details, but experiments *could* be derived to test these points.
Someone may feel that God is active in the world, but it always seems to follow the "He moves in mysterious ways" part -- which is a euphemistic way of saying it might as well be random chance. Nothing that has been testable. Whether a theory's premise is valid or not, it is worthless (from a scientific point of view) if it does not have a way to be disproven.
thoromyr
Funny how an AC has such definitive knowledge of how the progress of the didn't occur and the miraculous matching of the Dead Sea scrolls to this definitive Bible *and* knows that the true meaning of the Dead Sea scrolls was that they identically matched this Bible.
Funny, I bet you've never actually read any translation of the Dead Sea scrolls, or studied the history of the Bible.
thoromyr
"why exactly am I feeding this anonymous troll?"
Oh, didn't like the point, did you?
thoromyr
500 petitioners is nothing. That's like 0.00001 percent of the population of Texas. Who cares what they think?
Definitely a Texan. That would make the population of Texas like 5,000,000,000. Yep, Texas is the whole world alright ;^)
"next you will have naturalists lying infront of ur bulldozers"
Right where they belong. :-)
The clincher, of course.
thoromyr
I draw my own artwork and only recently started getting serious about it. I bought a Wacom at the same time. I do some art starting from the Wacom but I find that it *is* more difficult for some specific things than paper & pencil *precisely* because of the tablet/monitor issue. I can rotate the tablet as needed, but I'm still drawing from the monitor. This disconnect may not bother you, but it is an issue. I'm still learning to draw better on the Wacom, but there is no doubt that I am more generally facile with paper & pencil.
Thoromyr
Hmmm... some people don't get it. That's okay. But just in case you are actually curious and just a little thick:
1. Post on slashdot claiming x is more secure than y
2. Offer no proof to back claim
3. In fact, spout off a little about security basics and then pointedly ignore suggestions about the most basic security tenant: peer review.
If that's not clear enough I'm afraid I can't help you.
Cheers,
thoromyr
Ah, yes because a product he is currently using should be checked for obvious problems before being used...
Note that he avoids the question of peer review I brought up. Classic case of burying head in the sand. The idea sounds somewhat interesting, but without actual security experts looking at it its pretty meaningless.
Its roughly equivalent to the ocassional math proof that looks really good until it hits peer review. Anything complex has a high probability for error and peer review, while not eliminating error, does help in identifying it -- which can lead to resolving errors.
thoromyr
And what part of keeping the method secret isn't obscurity? Ah well.
thoromyr
6 day playlist? When I first got a job I went into debt buying so many cds. I currently have an estimated 24/7 30-day playlist. Set to random its like the radio w/o annoying commercials or dj's or bad reception.
thoromyr
So you're not really trying to rely on security through obscurity? I think it would be easy enough to get the peer review, only it could be a little disheartening or embarrasing if someone else found a glaring flaw...
thoromyr
I agree completely. I don't really even notice the ads. At least, not since I learned how to tweak the css... you mean slashdot has ads?
thoromyr
Wah. Sounds like someone wants to be pedantic. The W3C recommendations are what people have to use as a reference. Being used as a reference makes them standards, even if not ISO standards.
But why am I responding to an AC troll? How you get from "I like and respect Eric Meyer" to "his proclamations about 'web standards' rather deceptive" is amusing.
Obvious possibilities include:
1. Pedant
2. Troll
3. Wishes he had as much attention and respect
phah!
Thoromyr
I think patents and copyrights should be abolished -- but the reality is that they are here and used to prevent competition. Are you trying to suggest that a "high road" should be taken and Novell give up patents? Should they also dissolve themselves as a company to avoid corporate greed?
It's a (very) little bit like nuclear weapons. You have maybe five countries (companies) with a large nuclear arsenal (patent portfolio). They agree to not use them against each other, but to knock any one else down. Then one of the countries (companies) pledges a defense of someone outside of the power group. While it might satisfy someone's sense of morals if they dismantled their arsenel (portfolio) and crawled under a rock instead, that would have no effect on the remaining powers to continue the situation.
While not a perfect situation in a perfect world, Novell's stance seems to be an improvement over the past. I'm not about to get all warm-and-fuzzy over IBM and Novell, but their behavior has been much more commendable than, say, Microsoft or SCO.
thoromyr
Right, but parent asserted that "he should be controlling it from his speakers" -- which seems nonsensical. I control my PC speakers volume by a volume knob on the speaker, but that is a case where the "receiver" is part of the speaker -- and it applies the volume to both speakers, not just one.
And if you want to give the article writer credit you can suppose that his assertion was about proliferation of remote controls.
Having recently purchased a DVD player and separate receiver I have a comment on that: the salesman convinced my wife to buy both as Sony (I had picked out different brands initially) with the argument that we would only need one remote. However, this is not the case: to actually fully control the Sony DVD player requires the DVD player remote and to control the volume requires the receiver remote.
The last stereo equipment I purchased (now deceased) at least provided a reasonably competent multi-function universal remote that I was able to program for everything except the vcr (which is rarely used anyway).
The point being that for a product like this to be "ready" it needs to provide features consumers want: and most want to avoid a stack of a dozen remotes.
thoromyr
[As a side benefit to having a multi-function remote I was able to program the IRman for it with only minor problems. The TVs multi-remote provided better component separation, but fewer of the buttons I wanted. I have yet to tackle the Sony remotes, but because they are single function there will probably be issues with commands being received by multiple components.]
I'm still trying to figure out how this makes sense. Maybe its because I don't have digital speakers, but I'd assume that the best place to control sound would be at a central point before dispersal to umpteen different speakers.
"Okay, we've got the subwoofer, left and right speakers turned up. Now for the center. Not sure if we need to turn up the rear speakers."
If you want fine-tune control over the volume to each speaker its still preferrable to have a central point to do this from/with.
thoromyr
I believe that he was referring to how long its taken in coming. Lots of infighting as to who was controlling the standard. I haven't checked, but given the use of HDTV in "Until The End of the World" and my recollection of when I saw that -- its probably been 15-20 years.
Thoromyr
That reminds me of the british guy with a shotgun trap. Forgot to unset it before entering his flat one day. Last mistake of his life.
Thoromyr