Finally. Someone with direct experience to speak to the environment these are meant for. Then again, what else is/. for if not to make wild assumptions based mostly on groupthink?
DOOM ("DOOM") is the owner of United States Federal Trademark Registration(s) No. 12345678 and *numerous other trademark registrations pertaining to the mark. DOOM uses this mark in the United States in conjunction with its three main manifistations, DOOM 1, DOOM 2, and DOOM 3, and other products. DOOM's federal registration has been in full effect for over a horking high number of years. A copy of the federal trademark registration data is attached for your reference as Exhibit A. DOOM owns all sentences including the word "doom" in any case combination. It is hereby ordered by DOOM that you cease and desist from unauthorized uses of DOOM's property or face impending court action against you.
Even more interesting, imagine a drive with a special firmware that writes random images to a block before writing actual data.
So if I want to write 0xFEED to a block that currently reads 0xABCD, it first writes 0xAAAA, 0x5555, 0xRAND, then 0xFEED. The old 0xABCD is now much harder to read.
In this case, "writing" zeroes to a drive would indeed wipe it clean. Anyone know if such a thing exists? (runs to uspto.gov)
Thirty-seven IT employees from various US tech companies threw themselves off bridges today. Preliminary police reports indicate all users visited/. on April 1 immediately before taking their lives. More to follow...
To see this, I sacrificed what little innocence my computer had left and installed the latest version of AOL, 9.0 Optimized.
Indeed, it does infect your system with all sorts of adapters, media players, and installs quicktime and realplayer without your knowledge, but it did not disable windows messenger (note: I restarted after install and again after first run).
Then I went to their online security section where it asked if I wanted to do a scan of my machine's security settings. I allowed it. Then it told me that Windows Messenger was running and why it was bad. It then ASKED if I wanted to have it turned off for me, which I accepted, and indeed it was disabled.
Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what this article is talking about.
Technically, it is possible to read simultaneously from 2 webcams. It is well within the bandwidth bounds of USB 2.0 and IEEE 1394.
However, this would probably require a total software rewrite to enable. I don't imagine drivers would need major revisions, fortunately.
My main question, though, is why? Unless you plan to red/blue shift the objects based on apparent depth and require people to wear stupid glasses, you won't see any interesting effects.
I think we should be more concerned with bringing up the audiovideo quality of videoconferencing.
The fact that a phone is capable of this is just a novelty. This, combined with a list of features that are remarkably diffcult to perform on mobile phones as well as obscelete infrastructure, has slowed the process.
It is much more likely that as this and similar technologies progress, we will see a conglomeration of devices into something like a Personal Electronic Assistant (but probably with a better acronym than PEA =)
And why couldn't it combine the current capabilities of PDAs, credit cards, keys, music players, email, floss, etc.? Again, we're limited by infrastructure and the previous failure of similar but scaled down all-in-one electronic packages in the past.
That is all nice and well... however, I don't see how a non-profit community intends to create a new audio standards.
To my knowledge, we haven't seen an audio format or codec that has reached tier 1 status (RedBook, MP3, WAV, MIDI, etc.) that did not have major corporate involvement in its development. Even with DivX, we often see industry-standard audio codecs used... I don't see a community-based codec group inventing a new codec that gets used for anything more than illegally ripping DVDs and posting them on KaZaA.
But look: "[Com-cen] stands to benefit economically from the increased consumption of bandwidth that would result from an increase in the flow of traffic to the Web site and an increase in the number of sound recordings downloaded by visitors to the Web site due to the large size of music files"
Does that sound like direct profitability to you? IMHO, this sounds more like an attempt by Aussie media giants to sue left and right, not unlike similar examples we have seen in the US (case: suing 12 year olds who live in housing projects)
With all the publicity pumped up by the RIAA and the MPAA, is it any surprise that media companies around the world would start to do the same?
Still, I'm not sure I agree that the ISP is "profiting" from the hosting of copyrighted material on one of its user's homepages. It may be allowing it, but there's no commercial gain whatsoever.
Slashdot Mirror
Americans? This is the UK gov at work you fool.
Sarcasm --> *
You ------> o_o
You have not truly experienced invisibility cloaks until you seen one of the original Klingon.
Jesus Mary... you didn't use Wikipedia as a cited source, did you?
There's a case for RTFA if I ever saw one.
Finally. Someone with direct experience to speak to the environment these are meant for. Then again, what else is /. for if not to make wild assumptions based mostly on groupthink?
typical New Yorker =) http://www.bpl.org/
Done. Give us some hard ones.
"In soviet russia, games sue you!" were doomed!
Dear Mastadex,
DOOM ("DOOM") is the owner of United States Federal Trademark Registration(s) No. 12345678 and *numerous other trademark registrations pertaining to the mark. DOOM uses this mark in the United States in conjunction with its three main manifistations, DOOM 1, DOOM 2, and DOOM 3, and other products. DOOM's federal registration has been in full effect for over a horking high number of years. A copy of the federal trademark registration data is attached for your reference as Exhibit A. DOOM owns all sentences including the word "doom" in any case combination. It is hereby ordered by DOOM that you cease and desist from unauthorized uses of DOOM's property or face impending court action against you.
I think *I* write grammar checker is ok?
Even more interesting, imagine a drive with a special firmware that writes random images to a block before writing actual data.
So if I want to write 0xFEED to a block that currently reads 0xABCD, it first writes 0xAAAA, 0x5555, 0xRAND, then 0xFEED. The old 0xABCD is now much harder to read.
In this case, "writing" zeroes to a drive would indeed wipe it clean. Anyone know if such a thing exists? (runs to uspto.gov)
The reason, Dr. Disaster, is that incoming phone calls on most landlines in the US are free. Incoming calls on cell phones are, typically, not.
Caller: "Help, my house is on fire!"
911: "You appear to be making an emergency call. Would you like me to set up a template?"
Caller: "A what? Help me!"
911: "Accessing help..."
911: "..."
911: "Socket timed out, retrying..."
Caller: "Augh!"
911: "Welcome to the 911 help system. Please say your search terms now."
Caller: "....... FIRE!"
911: "Searching..."
911: "FIRE up your browsing experience with the new MSN Search, your comprehensive portal to the web!"
Caller: "Augh!"
adblock for the win
Yes, but the numbers only make sense in units of Olsen Twins
Is it just me or is this the world /. April Fool's Day EVER?
Thirty-seven IT employees from various US tech companies threw themselves off bridges today. Preliminary police reports indicate all users visited /. on April 1 immediately before taking their lives. More to follow...
See you in 2006
To see this, I sacrificed what little innocence my computer had left and installed the latest version of AOL, 9.0 Optimized.
Indeed, it does infect your system with all sorts of adapters, media players, and installs quicktime and realplayer without your knowledge, but it did not disable windows messenger (note: I restarted after install and again after first run).
Then I went to their online security section where it asked if I wanted to do a scan of my machine's security settings. I allowed it. Then it told me that Windows Messenger was running and why it was bad. It then ASKED if I wanted to have it turned off for me, which I accepted, and indeed it was disabled.
Honestly, I'm not sure exactly what this article is talking about.
Technically, it is possible to read simultaneously from 2 webcams. It is well within the bandwidth bounds of USB 2.0 and IEEE 1394.
However, this would probably require a total software rewrite to enable. I don't imagine drivers would need major revisions, fortunately.
My main question, though, is why? Unless you plan to red/blue shift the objects based on apparent depth and require people to wear stupid glasses, you won't see any interesting effects.
I think we should be more concerned with bringing up the audiovideo quality of videoconferencing.
Will it really be enough? This parody takes a look.
Exactly...
The fact that a phone is capable of this is just a novelty. This, combined with a list of features that are remarkably diffcult to perform on mobile phones as well as obscelete infrastructure, has slowed the process.
It is much more likely that as this and similar technologies progress, we will see a conglomeration of devices into something like a Personal Electronic Assistant (but probably with a better acronym than PEA =)
And why couldn't it combine the current capabilities of PDAs, credit cards, keys, music players, email, floss, etc.? Again, we're limited by infrastructure and the previous failure of similar but scaled down all-in-one electronic packages in the past.
That is all nice and well... however, I don't see how a non-profit community intends to create a new audio standards.
To my knowledge, we haven't seen an audio format or codec that has reached tier 1 status (RedBook, MP3, WAV, MIDI, etc.) that did not have major corporate involvement in its development. Even with DivX, we often see industry-standard audio codecs used... I don't see a community-based codec group inventing a new codec that gets used for anything more than illegally ripping DVDs and posting them on KaZaA.
But look: "[Com-cen] stands to benefit economically from the increased consumption of bandwidth that would result from an increase in the flow of traffic to the Web site and an increase in the number of sound recordings downloaded by visitors to the Web site due to the large size of music files" Does that sound like direct profitability to you? IMHO, this sounds more like an attempt by Aussie media giants to sue left and right, not unlike similar examples we have seen in the US (case: suing 12 year olds who live in housing projects)
With all the publicity pumped up by the RIAA and the MPAA, is it any surprise that media companies around the world would start to do the same?
Still, I'm not sure I agree that the ISP is "profiting" from the hosting of copyrighted material on one of its user's homepages. It may be allowing it, but there's no commercial gain whatsoever.