The great thing about online console play (the only thing, really, that it has over PCs) is their closed nature. It's much, much harder to cheat on a console than on a PC game.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support their right to mod their own hardware. But I don't want to play them online.
And this post goes to show exactly why you are so ignorant. Why don't you want to play them online? OMG THEY ARE PLAYING THE PIRATED GAMEX0rS! Ohnoes!
You have no way of telling if someone has a modded console or not, as a player. They play by the same rules as you do. If you are getting pwned online, which is sounds like you are, it's because you suck, not because they are "cheaters." There are no cheaters on XBL that are the result of modding a console. Modding a console allows you to play pirated games, erm, I mean backed up games. That's it. Don't whine and complain and point fingers at the pirates because you suck. Go use your time constructively to get better at the games you're getting pwned at.
Contrary to what people think, you are not allowed to do what ever you want to a phone.
Um yes I can, Please give me the LAWS that state otherwise.
I can do ANYTHING I WANT with my phone. I have an openmoko on AT&T and they cant control my phone other than turning off service. I can do anything I want with my phone, and the worse they can do is turn off service.
If you believe this, then the FCC would like to have a word with you. Just have a seat over there, the lawyers will be right in to explain exactly why you are going to pay several hundred thousand dollars in fines for operating an unlicensed transmitter.
While actual performance may not be faster, perceived performance almost certianly is. It "feels" snappier, seems to respond better, due to some optimizations in locking and in the graphics subsystem that allows visual feedback in one app to not be blocked or held up by work going on in another app.
That was one of the first things I noticed when I installed Win7.
Vista always felt sluggish. Even when things were working properly and I wasn't experiencing any problems, the entire OS just felt like molasses. There were minute pauses everywhere. Not enough to actually say this is taking longer than it did on XP... But it always felt like the OS was struggling to keep up with me.
With Win7, that hesitation is gone. Everything feels far more responsive. I don't know that I'm actually getting anything done any quicker... I don't know that anything is actually working better... But those minute hesitations are all gone, and the OS feels faster.
That's strange... I came to the Vista party late, with SP1 and never felt the OS was sluggish nor noticed micropauses, etc... It was about the same as XP as far as I was concerned in the department of responsiveness. Granted, I started with Vista on an Core i7 and 6GB of RAM, so that might make a difference, but it felt fine to me. Win 7 now feels the same as Vista did. Without any visual clues, I could not tell you the difference between Vista and Win 7 currently.
Yes, exactly like my snake-oil $25000 loudspeaker cables I'm using.... more punch... it feels quicker... less in-your-face...
Where are the actual tests to prove that win7 "feels" quicker?
Yeah... I've been using Win7 since RTM and it feels the same as Vista SP1 did prior to that. I don't notice any difference at all and may as well be on Vista for the amount of speed increase there is suppose to be.
That's not to say I don't like Win 7. I think it's ok, and now that I've gotten used to it, I like it a bit better than Windows XP. It's not the peak of OS design that people are making it out to be, though. And no, OSX is not anywhere near the peak either. I've used it and dislike it for a great many reasons as well. I would say Win 7 and OSX are about on par as far as user usability goes - they just have different methods when going about user tasks.
It's not surprising because the OS really can't do that much to improve (or mess up) the performance of user-mode code that isn't making many OS calls anyways.
What is surprising is that power consumption could be so significantly reduced. This story could have come out with an entirely different spin if the headline were simply, "Windows 7 Reduces Power Consumption by 17%."
I tend to agree... but what the article didn't seem to answer (or did I miss it?) - is whether the power consumption reduction follows onto single-core processors? Is the OS less power expensive, or just the multi-core code?
Wow.. yeah.. the original post talks about all the announced products that never get released and somehow, through an idiot filter, it gets translated into talking about released products.
I mean, seriously... what is so hard to understand about the following:
"Every company out there seems to hvae an E-Book 'in the works,' but so far only a handful have actually shipped usable products."
And
"In the case of E-Book readers, if you can't buy it, who really cares?"
Seriously... explain to me how you can possible misinterpret that as being "All E-Book readers are vaporware, l0lers! Derrrr!"
You'd have to be a complete moron to get that out of what was written.
Why the director of the FBI was even reading an unsolicited bank email is behind comprehension to begin with. The guy should be fired for stupidity. I mean... he's the director of the FBI, you'd expect him to know better.
Do you know about fighting espionage, narcotraffickers, and terrorism? Why do you expect him to about this? As the director of the FBI he has expert assistants who know how to deal with these, he doesn't need to know everything himself.
Falcon
Yes, actually, I do. Probably not to the extent he does, but my military intelligence background did involve those things, as a matter of fact.
But that is besides the point. Knowing not to be an idiot with your financial information is basic survival skills in this day and age. It has nothing to do with your vocation. If you are the head of the FBI, I damn well expect you to know your basic online survival skills and have the badge to prove it. If you don't, you really don't need to be in a position of authority.
Yay... more e-Book vaporware. How many new, awesome, revolutionary E-Book readers are we going to hear about? Christ, it's getting old... the E-Book hype is getting out of hand. Every company out there seems to have an E-Book "in the works," but so far to date only a handful have actually shipped usable products. LG is only the latest to jump on the E-Book bandwagon, and I'm sure they won't be the last. The whole E-Book field is littered with junk announcements like this. Get back to me when someone actually SHIPS a product, not announces a prototype. Whopee do. In the case of E-Book Readers, if you can't buy it, who really cares? It's just another e-ink or LCD or OLED screen.
No, there's no major banks in the US that I know if that send out email as a regular form of communication.
Why the director of the FBI was even reading an unsolicited bank email is behind comprehension to begin with. The guy should be fired for stupidity. I mean... he's the director of the FBI, you'd expect him to know better.
"...along with the belief that apple has that much better reliability..."
Yeah, that's why Apple consistently has the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry.
It's easy to have a high customer satisfaction rating when you have less than 10% of the market. It's a lot harder to make 90% of the people happy than it is to make 10% of the people happy.
"Now go try editing 21MP digital images from your camera and see how 1, 2, 4 even 6GB fares."
I do just fine editing HUGE images with 2GB of RAM, even RAW format. Don't get jack for disk swapping, because virtual memory is disabled in Windows XP.
Your software probably sucks - quit using Adobe.
Haha... Quit using Adobe. Yeah, cause there's an alternative for Photoshop. And no, GIMP isn't an alternative for Photoshop. It's fine for light use, but if you want to do any serious work, Photoshop is really your only choice.
I wish it wern't so, but reality trumps wishful thinking.
Sorry, but you don't edit huge RAW images in 2 GB of RAM, no matter what program you use. Unless by huge you mean 2MP. sRAW doesn't count either.
Unfortunately 2 GBs *ain't* enough for anybody, and the 32-bit address space is a bit short for properly managing more than that.
Right now I'm running Firefox with 12 tabs, listening to music, and editing a lengthy file in OpenOffice, while running KDE with full composing effects enabled... and I'm using about half of my 1GB. What use could I possibly have for 4GB?
Wow, so you're not really doing anything with your computer beyond a glorified media center? Imagine it not using more than 1GB of RAM!
Now go try editing 21MP digital images from your camera and see how 1, 2, 4 even 6GB fares. You'll be tearing your hair out waiting for the disk swapping. 12GB is about the bare minimum to work with large images without excessive swapping.
Try playing a modern game in 2 GB... doesn't work very well. Hell, Battlefield 2, which was released years ago was suck-tacular in 2GB of RAM, so 4GB was really the sweetspot.
The list goes on. The day we completely jettison 32bit legacy crap is a happy day for sure.
How about false positives? Antivirus software that checks nested encrypted archives often crashes, or marks as a false positive, files that contain a large amount of compressed data. For example:
42.zip contains 4.5PB of data, compressed to 42kb. My university's mailserver marks it as a false positive.
selfgz.gz is a gzip file that decompresses to itself. My university's mailserver tries to decompress it forever to scan all the nested files. It marks it as a false positive, since it was unscannable.
You don't say what kind of false positive it's flagged as. However, I would hope files like that get flagged in some manner, so I would say it's not a false positive. You do not want to start unzipping 4.5PB of data... if you truly have a tiny zip file with a huge amount of data, then manually deactivating or somehow making other provisions for such a unique case is perfectly acceptable. In all other instances, I want to be warned that there is something exceptionally strange about that file.
A self-decompressing.gz file? FUCK YES I want to know about that... a non-application file that can somehow execute itself? I would say that is exceptionally dangerous and should be flagged as such. That is not a false positive - there is something very strange about that file and is potentially exceptionally dangerous. Again, if you need this file for some specific reason, the manually making provisions to get it is perfectly acceptable.
So... in both cases you presented, I would definitely say that is not a false positive.
I deliberately bought 27" screens for that very reason. I don't consider having dual 1920x1200 displays a ripoff:P. More importantly, the larger physical size of the display versus a smaller number of pixels means that text is by default LARGER and more readable, which is a good thing.
Haha... no. No, it's not. I bought a pair of the best 26" monitors out at the time - the Planar ones with ultra low lag. I forget the model number... anyway, I was "upgrading" from a 24" Dell. Both ran 1920x1200.
Worst. Mistake. Ever.
Increasing the monitor size without increasing the DPI is a horrible, horrible idea for so many reasons. However, the biggest reason is eye strain. Yes, the text may be "larger," but your eyes have to focus and refocus like a motherfucker to combine those RGB elements into a single colored pixel in your brain. The RGB elements are so far apart on a 26" and 27" ultra-crappy DPI monitor running at 1920x1200 that it's almost impossible for your eyes to relax at any time.
24" is the upper limit of 1920x1200, and even that is a bit large. I have since switched to a pair of 30" monitors running 2560x1600... my eyes are much more thankful and my headaches have gone away. Anyone who thinks a larger monitor with a lower effective DPI is "better" fails to understand the purpose of DPI and how LCD monitors work. If you want larger text, increase the font size. Getting a larger monitor while keeping the same resolution is about the worst idea you could possibly come up with to solve the issue.
Yes he is an idiot. Microwaves != ionizing radiation. People here radiation and freak out.
Ionizing radiation is what causes mutations. Non-ionizing radiation is basically harmless, except for perhaps heating up water molecules and for communicating over distance. The thing about ionizing radiation that you're likely to encounter in your daily life is that it's very low energy... so once it bounces off a wall or other object, it looses most of it's energy. You get far more ionizing radiation from the sun than you do from just about any other source you're likely to encounter. Microwave towers included.
I've had similar problems and it always comes back to the javascript they are using. If I change the way the JS is allowed via AdBlock or NoScript, things start working... if I keep it at my normal settings, the descriptions disappear.
They built the products early because the IEEE was dragging their feet on the final approval. The IEEE defined the standard exceptionally late - that's WHY the vendors built early. You've got the cause and effect totally reversed.
Gee thanks. Appreciate the timely response, Bruce. I'm glad the 802.11n Task Group was so on this project that they got the 802.11n standard finally approved years after all vendors have already been making products. Yeah, thanks.
Next time... I don't know... maybe define the standard in a reasonable time frame, not 5 years after the fact.
No it doesn't. It looks nothing like one. If it looks like a real firearm, it looks like a supersized version of the already supersized Barrett.50 cal.
I would contend that it is much simpler to avoid accidents in three dimensions than two: you have significantly more options should a collision be imminent.
While this may be true, you will never see flying cars for the general public until people A) Take responsibility for their actions and B) Stop suing everyone/every company that might have had a hand in making a product that fails in some esoteric way.
The problem with flying cars for the general public is the failure mode. The failure mode of a normal, ground based car is to slowly coast to a stop, hopefully on the side of the road. The failure mode of a flying vehicle is to crash in a firey ball on the ground. One is exceedingly more survivable than the other. If your car conks out on the highway, chances are you are going to live and be uninjured. If your car conks out at 2000 feet, chances are you are going to be injured and/or injure someone else with your 2000+ pounds falling out of the sky.
Now with that injury comes a giant lawsuit. Even if the flying car is 25+ years old and a beater, you know someone is going to sue the manufacturer for failure. No one sues the auto manufacturer for failure on a 25 year old Buick that finally decides to kick the bucket at 70 mph on the highway... they chalk it up to poor maintenance and buy a new one.
Are you *positive* that the VPN connection is uncrackable? If it's going over wireless, then if someone is recording the cyphertext, they will be able to recover the VPN cyphertext out of the WPA cyphertext. If they then know of a way to recover the 'cleartext' from the VPN cyphertext, then you are still leaking your data. If the VPN system is so secure, why aren't we using it for the wireless connection? That is, make the wireless network a VPN using the same algorithms you use for your VPN?
While I am not commenting on the security or lack of security in a VPN connection, I believe I can answer this. The simple fact is, most routers can't handle the encryption load of a full blown VPN, especially one with multiple users. Even dedicated routers that are made to handle this can only handle 5 or 10 at a time until you start plopping down the big bucks for the serious VPN routers.
So using VPN level of encryption on a home router is not going to happen until processing power is increased dramatically on the cheap CPUs they use.
Slashdot Mirror
The great thing about online console play (the only thing, really, that it has over PCs) is their closed nature. It's much, much harder to cheat on a console than on a PC game.
Don't get me wrong. I fully support their right to mod their own hardware. But I don't want to play them online.
And this post goes to show exactly why you are so ignorant. Why don't you want to play them online? OMG THEY ARE PLAYING THE PIRATED GAMEX0rS! Ohnoes!
You have no way of telling if someone has a modded console or not, as a player. They play by the same rules as you do. If you are getting pwned online, which is sounds like you are, it's because you suck, not because they are "cheaters." There are no cheaters on XBL that are the result of modding a console. Modding a console allows you to play pirated games, erm, I mean backed up games. That's it. Don't whine and complain and point fingers at the pirates because you suck. Go use your time constructively to get better at the games you're getting pwned at.
Contrary to what people think, you are not allowed to do what ever you want to a phone.
Um yes I can, Please give me the LAWS that state otherwise.
I can do ANYTHING I WANT with my phone. I have an openmoko on AT&T and they cant control my phone other than turning off service. I can do anything I want with my phone, and the worse they can do is turn off service.
If you believe this, then the FCC would like to have a word with you. Just have a seat over there, the lawyers will be right in to explain exactly why you are going to pay several hundred thousand dollars in fines for operating an unlicensed transmitter.
While actual performance may not be faster, perceived performance almost certianly is. It "feels" snappier, seems to respond better, due to some optimizations in locking and in the graphics subsystem that allows visual feedback in one app to not be blocked or held up by work going on in another app.
That was one of the first things I noticed when I installed Win7.
Vista always felt sluggish. Even when things were working properly and I wasn't experiencing any problems, the entire OS just felt like molasses. There were minute pauses everywhere. Not enough to actually say this is taking longer than it did on XP... But it always felt like the OS was struggling to keep up with me.
With Win7, that hesitation is gone. Everything feels far more responsive. I don't know that I'm actually getting anything done any quicker... I don't know that anything is actually working better... But those minute hesitations are all gone, and the OS feels faster.
That's strange... I came to the Vista party late, with SP1 and never felt the OS was sluggish nor noticed micropauses, etc... It was about the same as XP as far as I was concerned in the department of responsiveness. Granted, I started with Vista on an Core i7 and 6GB of RAM, so that might make a difference, but it felt fine to me. Win 7 now feels the same as Vista did. Without any visual clues, I could not tell you the difference between Vista and Win 7 currently.
Yes, exactly like my snake-oil $25000 loudspeaker cables I'm using.... more punch... it feels quicker... less in-your-face...
Where are the actual tests to prove that win7 "feels" quicker?
Yeah... I've been using Win7 since RTM and it feels the same as Vista SP1 did prior to that. I don't notice any difference at all and may as well be on Vista for the amount of speed increase there is suppose to be.
That's not to say I don't like Win 7. I think it's ok, and now that I've gotten used to it, I like it a bit better than Windows XP. It's not the peak of OS design that people are making it out to be, though. And no, OSX is not anywhere near the peak either. I've used it and dislike it for a great many reasons as well. I would say Win 7 and OSX are about on par as far as user usability goes - they just have different methods when going about user tasks.
It's not surprising because the OS really can't do that much to improve (or mess up) the performance of user-mode code that isn't making many OS calls anyways.
What is surprising is that power consumption could be so significantly reduced. This story could have come out with an entirely different spin if the headline were simply, "Windows 7 Reduces Power Consumption by 17%."
I tend to agree... but what the article didn't seem to answer (or did I miss it?) - is whether the power consumption reduction follows onto single-core processors? Is the OS less power expensive, or just the multi-core code?
Nooo! I was hoping that power consumption would continue to increase! Sooner or later our PCs would require 1.21GW!
I think you mean 1.21 JW. Gigawatts measure electrical power, Jigawatts measures temporal power.
But it's obvious your PC never achieves it's goal, since it didn't come back in time and try to date your mother.
Wow.. yeah.. the original post talks about all the announced products that never get released and somehow, through an idiot filter, it gets translated into talking about released products.
I mean, seriously... what is so hard to understand about the following:
"Every company out there seems to hvae an E-Book 'in the works,' but so far only a handful have actually shipped usable products."
And
"In the case of E-Book readers, if you can't buy it, who really cares?"
Seriously... explain to me how you can possible misinterpret that as being "All E-Book readers are vaporware, l0lers! Derrrr!"
You'd have to be a complete moron to get that out of what was written.
Why the director of the FBI was even reading an unsolicited bank email is behind comprehension to begin with. The guy should be fired for stupidity. I mean... he's the director of the FBI, you'd expect him to know better.
Do you know about fighting espionage, narcotraffickers, and terrorism? Why do you expect him to about this? As the director of the FBI he has expert assistants who know how to deal with these, he doesn't need to know everything himself.
Falcon
Yes, actually, I do. Probably not to the extent he does, but my military intelligence background did involve those things, as a matter of fact.
But that is besides the point. Knowing not to be an idiot with your financial information is basic survival skills in this day and age. It has nothing to do with your vocation. If you are the head of the FBI, I damn well expect you to know your basic online survival skills and have the badge to prove it. If you don't, you really don't need to be in a position of authority.
It hasn't. This product in question is NOT AN ACTUAL RELEASED PRODUCT. You should RTFA before posting.
The people modding you up to +5 should also RTFA.
LG is showing a PROTOTYPE at a trade show in the future. That is not, by any definition, a released product.
Yay... more e-Book vaporware. How many new, awesome, revolutionary E-Book readers are we going to hear about? Christ, it's getting old... the E-Book hype is getting out of hand. Every company out there seems to have an E-Book "in the works," but so far to date only a handful have actually shipped usable products. LG is only the latest to jump on the E-Book bandwagon, and I'm sure they won't be the last. The whole E-Book field is littered with junk announcements like this. Get back to me when someone actually SHIPS a product, not announces a prototype. Whopee do. In the case of E-Book Readers, if you can't buy it, who really cares? It's just another e-ink or LCD or OLED screen.
No, there's no major banks in the US that I know if that send out email as a regular form of communication.
Why the director of the FBI was even reading an unsolicited bank email is behind comprehension to begin with. The guy should be fired for stupidity. I mean... he's the director of the FBI, you'd expect him to know better.
"...along with the belief that apple has that much better reliability..."
Yeah, that's why Apple consistently has the highest customer satisfaction ratings in the industry.
It's easy to have a high customer satisfaction rating when you have less than 10% of the market. It's a lot harder to make 90% of the people happy than it is to make 10% of the people happy.
"Now go try editing 21MP digital images from your camera and see how 1, 2, 4 even 6GB fares."
I do just fine editing HUGE images with 2GB of RAM, even RAW format. Don't get jack for disk swapping, because virtual memory is disabled in Windows XP.
Your software probably sucks - quit using Adobe.
Haha... Quit using Adobe. Yeah, cause there's an alternative for Photoshop. And no, GIMP isn't an alternative for Photoshop. It's fine for light use, but if you want to do any serious work, Photoshop is really your only choice.
I wish it wern't so, but reality trumps wishful thinking.
Sorry, but you don't edit huge RAW images in 2 GB of RAM, no matter what program you use. Unless by huge you mean 2MP. sRAW doesn't count either.
My Sharp Zarus (or however that was spelled) would also like to have a word with the Newton newcomer after your Psion.
Unfortunately 2 GBs *ain't* enough for anybody, and the 32-bit address space is a bit short for properly managing more than that.
Right now I'm running Firefox with 12 tabs, listening to music, and editing a lengthy file in OpenOffice, while running KDE with full composing effects enabled... and I'm using about half of my 1GB. What use could I possibly have for 4GB?
Wow, so you're not really doing anything with your computer beyond a glorified media center? Imagine it not using more than 1GB of RAM!
Now go try editing 21MP digital images from your camera and see how 1, 2, 4 even 6GB fares. You'll be tearing your hair out waiting for the disk swapping. 12GB is about the bare minimum to work with large images without excessive swapping.
Try playing a modern game in 2 GB... doesn't work very well. Hell, Battlefield 2, which was released years ago was suck-tacular in 2GB of RAM, so 4GB was really the sweetspot.
The list goes on. The day we completely jettison 32bit legacy crap is a happy day for sure.
How about false positives? Antivirus software that checks nested encrypted archives often crashes, or marks as a false positive, files that contain a large amount of compressed data. For example:
42.zip contains 4.5PB of data, compressed to 42kb. My university's mailserver marks it as a false positive.
selfgz.gz is a gzip file that decompresses to itself. My university's mailserver tries to decompress it forever to scan all the nested files. It marks it as a false positive, since it was unscannable.
You don't say what kind of false positive it's flagged as. However, I would hope files like that get flagged in some manner, so I would say it's not a false positive. You do not want to start unzipping 4.5PB of data... if you truly have a tiny zip file with a huge amount of data, then manually deactivating or somehow making other provisions for such a unique case is perfectly acceptable. In all other instances, I want to be warned that there is something exceptionally strange about that file.
A self-decompressing .gz file? FUCK YES I want to know about that... a non-application file that can somehow execute itself? I would say that is exceptionally dangerous and should be flagged as such. That is not a false positive - there is something very strange about that file and is potentially exceptionally dangerous. Again, if you need this file for some specific reason, the manually making provisions to get it is perfectly acceptable.
So... in both cases you presented, I would definitely say that is not a false positive.
I deliberately bought 27" screens for that very reason. I don't consider having dual 1920x1200 displays a ripoff :P. More importantly, the larger physical size of the display versus a smaller number of pixels means that text is by default LARGER and more readable, which is a good thing.
Haha... no. No, it's not. I bought a pair of the best 26" monitors out at the time - the Planar ones with ultra low lag. I forget the model number... anyway, I was "upgrading" from a 24" Dell. Both ran 1920x1200.
Worst. Mistake. Ever.
Increasing the monitor size without increasing the DPI is a horrible, horrible idea for so many reasons. However, the biggest reason is eye strain. Yes, the text may be "larger," but your eyes have to focus and refocus like a motherfucker to combine those RGB elements into a single colored pixel in your brain. The RGB elements are so far apart on a 26" and 27" ultra-crappy DPI monitor running at 1920x1200 that it's almost impossible for your eyes to relax at any time.
24" is the upper limit of 1920x1200, and even that is a bit large. I have since switched to a pair of 30" monitors running 2560x1600... my eyes are much more thankful and my headaches have gone away. Anyone who thinks a larger monitor with a lower effective DPI is "better" fails to understand the purpose of DPI and how LCD monitors work. If you want larger text, increase the font size. Getting a larger monitor while keeping the same resolution is about the worst idea you could possibly come up with to solve the issue.
Yes he is an idiot. Microwaves != ionizing radiation. People here radiation and freak out.
Ionizing radiation is what causes mutations. Non-ionizing radiation is basically harmless, except for perhaps heating up water molecules and for communicating over distance. The thing about ionizing radiation that you're likely to encounter in your daily life is that it's very low energy... so once it bounces off a wall or other object, it looses most of it's energy. You get far more ionizing radiation from the sun than you do from just about any other source you're likely to encounter. Microwave towers included.
So yes, he's an idiot.
You just got wooshed, since there are no drive letters in Linux.
I've had similar problems and it always comes back to the javascript they are using. If I change the way the JS is allowed via AdBlock or NoScript, things start working... if I keep it at my normal settings, the descriptions disappear.
They built the products early because the IEEE was dragging their feet on the final approval. The IEEE defined the standard exceptionally late - that's WHY the vendors built early. You've got the cause and effect totally reversed.
Gee thanks. Appreciate the timely response, Bruce. I'm glad the 802.11n Task Group was so on this project that they got the 802.11n standard finally approved years after all vendors have already been making products. Yeah, thanks.
Next time... I don't know... maybe define the standard in a reasonable time frame, not 5 years after the fact.
No it doesn't. It looks nothing like one. If it looks like a real firearm, it looks like a supersized version of the already supersized Barrett .50 cal.
I would contend that it is much simpler to avoid accidents in three dimensions than two: you have significantly more options should a collision be imminent.
While this may be true, you will never see flying cars for the general public until people A) Take responsibility for their actions and B) Stop suing everyone/every company that might have had a hand in making a product that fails in some esoteric way.
The problem with flying cars for the general public is the failure mode. The failure mode of a normal, ground based car is to slowly coast to a stop, hopefully on the side of the road. The failure mode of a flying vehicle is to crash in a firey ball on the ground. One is exceedingly more survivable than the other. If your car conks out on the highway, chances are you are going to live and be uninjured. If your car conks out at 2000 feet, chances are you are going to be injured and/or injure someone else with your 2000+ pounds falling out of the sky.
Now with that injury comes a giant lawsuit. Even if the flying car is 25+ years old and a beater, you know someone is going to sue the manufacturer for failure. No one sues the auto manufacturer for failure on a 25 year old Buick that finally decides to kick the bucket at 70 mph on the highway... they chalk it up to poor maintenance and buy a new one.
Are you *positive* that the VPN connection is uncrackable? If it's going over wireless, then if someone is recording the cyphertext, they will be able to recover the VPN cyphertext out of the WPA cyphertext. If they then know of a way to recover the 'cleartext' from the VPN cyphertext, then you are still leaking your data. If the VPN system is so secure, why aren't we using it for the wireless connection? That is, make the wireless network a VPN using the same algorithms you use for your VPN?
While I am not commenting on the security or lack of security in a VPN connection, I believe I can answer this. The simple fact is, most routers can't handle the encryption load of a full blown VPN, especially one with multiple users. Even dedicated routers that are made to handle this can only handle 5 or 10 at a time until you start plopping down the big bucks for the serious VPN routers.
So using VPN level of encryption on a home router is not going to happen until processing power is increased dramatically on the cheap CPUs they use.