As I understand it: The current implementation is optional, and you don't have to even enable the security crap. I know I have my IBM Thinkpad with one of these chips in it, and I just flicked it off in the BIOS when I found out. The keys are user-controlled, as I recall, not manufacturer-distributed.
The fear is that either some big company M****s*ft will make software which won't run if you don't have trusted computer installed, and/or that Microsoft's implementation [Palladium, or whatever they're calling it five minutes from now] will be far more restrictive.
There was a great post on this a few weeks ago the last time a trusted computing article showed up, with some really helpful links...I can't seem to find it right now, though. Go check it out if you're worried.
Interestingly, my HP sitting over in the corner had the same cartridges installed in it for over 18 months, and it never had a problem using the above drivers.
TFA claims that initially, it will draw more power than an LCD to paint the display, but the image will remain without additional repaints, saving energy.
Now, I'd like to think I'm not an idiot...but how will that save energy on displays which, for instance, require frequent repaints? Let's say that I'm running my iPod with one of those screens, as they show in the article. The thing has to draw segments of the bar frequently, update the time remaining once per second, draw the entire "Now playing:" row to create the "scroll" effect for long titles, redraw the top if you have a clock running up there, et cetera, et cetera.
Another example would be a touch-sensitive screen. In a drawing tablet, I'd imagine the repaint levels are not going to be particularly low, especially for full-tablet images...
I suppose my question becomes...is it actually less power-hungry than traditional LCDs for its practical uses?
Mod Parent Not-Flamebait
on
SHA-1 Broken
·
· Score: 1
Parent is trying to be funny, dammit.
It's flamebait if they're trying to get flamed. They're trying to amuse.
I just filter everything to Junk Mail that's not from a recognized sender or with a certain keyphrase in the subject, and suddenly I have a week to scoop it out before it dies.
Fair enough. But once again, do car manufacturers document it when they change something slight under the hood of newer cars, like using a newer type of wiring?
In any event. The GMail service itself may be dormant in terms of obvious activity, but I doubt Google is ignoring it.
I had a LaserJet 1100 I grabbed from a giveaway at my school, where I knew for a fact that it had just been donated and never used since it was donated.
It printed like a dream for the first few hundred pages, and then it ate a page. Since then, the printout was smeared, and an attempt to fix it rendered the printer unreassemblable.
No, seriously. It ate a page. It spooled in one end, did not come out the other, and the printer reported clear. Opening the printer showed no sign of said paper [It wrapped around one of the rollers].
We've got a Brother HL-1440 in the lab now, and it's not faultered once.
The poster above, regardless of his Tinfoil Hat Rating, is not arguing that he hates Windows and so everything Gates ever did is bad.
He is arguing that there may be an ulterior motive behind what is done with the money.
By all means, praise Gates for donating money...but in doing so, do not forget the golden maxim: "What could he have accomplished by doing this?"
Admittedly, that strays into Tinfoil Hat territory as well. Look at it this way: you argue that the poster was claiming that what Gates did was bad because of one thing (Windows). I argue that you're claiming that what Gates does is good because of one thing (donating to charity).
People enjoy saying "Actions speak louder than words," but that is a logical fallacy. If I were to commit tax fraud for forty years, and then donate half of the money I possessed as a result of it (which would be a considerable sum) to charity, that would be seen as good. If people knew that I had stolen money from the government (regardless of whether the taxes are right, fair, just, et al.) to do so, they would decry me in the streets.
Just because one does something good does not mean that one is a good person. Keep that in mind.
As has been posted no less than three times above by Shad0w, he has made a torrent. Currently, I just finished, and the thing has over 200 people on it.
http://tracker.degreez.net/downloads/1984macintr o. mov.torrent
I pulled the Centrino label off of my IBM ThinkPad four or five months ago, when I noticed that my laptop didn't work with "Centrino-verified" networks.
Plus, it was peeling off and annoying me while touch-typing.
Also, if nothing else, this clarifies the difference between Centrino and most of the technology that goes into it.
Slashdot Mirror
Seconded.
Mod parent informative!
Still interesting to note, though, that they're not got any information on it any more.
The company site has removed CherryOS from their product listings.
http://www.mxsinc.com/
How long until a FairPlay clone for Sony's service comes out.
Personally, I'm betting a month after the initial service release, with an additional 2 weeks every encoding update.
remember the gamer stereotype is a geek with glasses
My girlfriend is a geek with glasses. I don't see the conflict.
As I understand it:
The current implementation is optional, and you don't have to even enable the security crap. I know I have my IBM Thinkpad with one of these chips in it, and I just flicked it off in the BIOS when I found out. The keys are user-controlled, as I recall, not manufacturer-distributed.
The fear is that either some big company M****s*ft will make software which won't run if you don't have trusted computer installed, and/or that Microsoft's implementation [Palladium, or whatever they're calling it five minutes from now] will be far more restrictive.
There was a great post on this a few weeks ago the last time a trusted computing article showed up, with some really helpful links...I can't seem to find it right now, though. Go check it out if you're worried.
Personally...it scares the shit out of me.
The reason they couldn't find the e-mails is that they didn't "aks" the right question.
AUD value plummets after a sudden influx of USD due to the recently-approved suicide fines...
It's just not on some mirrors.
Why not use the torrent?
Like this?
Just a thought.
Interestingly, my HP sitting over in the corner had the same cartridges installed in it for over 18 months, and it never had a problem using the above drivers.
A) Patches like that would be illegal.
B) Patches like that would, by the law's own restrictions, be a bitch to do, since the things are mandated to be highly tamper-resistant.
With that said, I predict a year until it's cracked.
The page itself is static, yes - but if you scroll, then a significant portion has to change.
If you're reading the comments page, for example, you'll be scrolling and redrawing quite a bit.
But a laptop screen of this stuff is awhile out, so I'm getting ahead of myself.
TFA claims that initially, it will draw more power than an LCD to paint the display, but the image will remain without additional repaints, saving energy.
Now, I'd like to think I'm not an idiot...but how will that save energy on displays which, for instance, require frequent repaints? Let's say that I'm running my iPod with one of those screens, as they show in the article. The thing has to draw segments of the bar frequently, update the time remaining once per second, draw the entire "Now playing:" row to create the "scroll" effect for long titles, redraw the top if you have a clock running up there, et cetera, et cetera.
Another example would be a touch-sensitive screen. In a drawing tablet, I'd imagine the repaint levels are not going to be particularly low, especially for full-tablet images...
I suppose my question becomes...is it actually less power-hungry than traditional LCDs for its practical uses?
Parent is trying to be funny, dammit.
It's flamebait if they're trying to get flamed. They're trying to amuse.
I just filter everything to Junk Mail that's not from a recognized sender or with a certain keyphrase in the subject, and suddenly I have a week to scoop it out before it dies.
Saves me time.
Prove it's theft?
It's closed-source. There's no proof that the code is from Mozilla unless a dev feels guilty.
Sad, but true.
Got evidence?
If you do, by all means, edit the Wikipedia article.
In either case, learn to spell. Proper English makes you a lot more credible.
Fair enough. But once again, do car manufacturers document it when they change something slight under the hood of newer cars, like using a newer type of wiring?
In any event. The GMail service itself may be dormant in terms of obvious activity, but I doubt Google is ignoring it.
The backend of GMail is Google's web search/index/whatever software, and you know damn well that's being upgraded whenever they can.
Just a thought.
I had a LaserJet 1100 I grabbed from a giveaway at my school, where I knew for a fact that it had just been donated and never used since it was donated.
It printed like a dream for the first few hundred pages, and then it ate a page. Since then, the printout was smeared, and an attempt to fix it rendered the printer unreassemblable.
No, seriously. It ate a page. It spooled in one end, did not come out the other, and the printer reported clear. Opening the printer showed no sign of said paper [It wrapped around one of the rollers].
We've got a Brother HL-1440 in the lab now, and it's not faultered once.
Of course, the humor of it is, there is a port of file already..
"Advanced binary recognition" my arse. You play with the first few KB, suddenly you've got a legal file!
How silly of them, to reimplement something that already exists with an easy GUI.
The poster above, regardless of his Tinfoil Hat Rating, is not arguing that he hates Windows and so everything Gates ever did is bad.
He is arguing that there may be an ulterior motive behind what is done with the money.
By all means, praise Gates for donating money...but in doing so, do not forget the golden maxim: "What could he have accomplished by doing this?"
Admittedly, that strays into Tinfoil Hat territory as well. Look at it this way: you argue that the poster was claiming that what Gates did was bad because of one thing (Windows). I argue that you're claiming that what Gates does is good because of one thing (donating to charity).
People enjoy saying "Actions speak louder than words," but that is a logical fallacy. If I were to commit tax fraud for forty years, and then donate half of the money I possessed as a result of it (which would be a considerable sum) to charity, that would be seen as good. If people knew that I had stolen money from the government (regardless of whether the taxes are right, fair, just, et al.) to do so, they would decry me in the streets.
Just because one does something good does not mean that one is a good person. Keep that in mind.
Not all Americans.
Most, certainly, yes.
But not all.
I hesitate to make the pun, but...speak for yourself.
As has been posted no less than three times above by Shad0w, he has made a torrent. Currently, I just finished, and the thing has over 200 people on it.
r o. mov.torrent
http://tracker.degreez.net/downloads/1984macint
I pulled the Centrino label off of my IBM ThinkPad four or five months ago, when I noticed that my laptop didn't work with "Centrino-verified" networks.
Plus, it was peeling off and annoying me while touch-typing.
Also, if nothing else, this clarifies the difference between Centrino and most of the technology that goes into it.