Exactly.
Macs are pretty much the same as Vista's going to be, and Linux is an order of magnitude more confusing for non-technical users.
People get pissed at the first little change and make these "threats" to change platform without doing any research or having the first clue what they're talking about. It makes you look stupid guys.
Mummy, better security makes it an infentisimal amount more challenging to hawk our products!
Woah no! We don't like this game explorer concept!
Waaaah, parental controls prevent kids who shouldn't be playing our games anyway from playing them!
Boo hoo, trying to run a game from outside the game explorer results in strange behaviour (this is the only legitimate complaint)
It just sounds like a list of whiney bitching... because it is.
I mean seriously, Microsoft have gone out of their way to improve gaming on Vista and all these guys can do is complain that kids are properly protected and that LUA makes pushing their product harder? I'm sorry, but I'll take an extra security dialog to get a demo if it results in fewer of the general internet-unsavvy users infecting themselves, and Microsoft are NOT your marketing company; it's not their concern that your strategy can't cope with a minor change.
Jesus christ.
What about all the work that's gone into DX10? All the consultations with game studios and hardware developers? The tightening of the requirements for cards to be certified as DX10 capable which is designed to make your jobs easier?
Quit the ungrateful highschool bitching and respond to change.
It's something that tends to happen in the real world, and it's for the better.
The amount of people who just jump to totally the wrong conclusion based on no working knowledge of the system they're talking about is staggering - that includes the times article and most of the comments above. Fuck's sake people.
READ THE GODDAMN SPECIFICATION BEFORE YOU SPOUT OUT BOLLOCKS! Link
2.4.1.1 DVI (Digital)
DVI is a high-speed, high-quality, digital pixel interface, developed by the PC industry. It is used in place of analog VGA to connect to PC monitors. It can provide very high resolutions by paralleling separate channels.
Intel's HDCP protection is available for DVI, but is not always implemented by hardware manufacturers. HDCP is approved by the content industry, so DVI with HDCP is a great output solution for protected content.
In contrast, DVI without HDCP is definitely not liked by content owners, because it provides a pristine digital interface that can be captured cleanly. When playing premium content such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD, PVP-OPM will be required to turn off or constrict the quality of unprotected DVI. As a result, a regular DVI monitor will either get slightly fuzzy or go black, with a polite message explaining that it doesn't meet security requirements. So, to correct:
HD will output flawlessly on any output when HDCP is not requested by the content producer
If HDCP is requested, the content can either be degraded to standard definition or blocked completely
It will be degraded, not blocked. Content providers are greedy but not stupid
That times article is retarded, and makes it sound as though you can't watch HD on a digital monitor at all but "huuuuuuuurrrr it'll be just fine on analog." To reiterate, content providers might be greedy but they're not stupid. Given the option of degrading or blocking, they will go for degrading so that you can be enticed to think how much better it would be in HD if you go buy their fancy kit, and also to reduce all the complaints of "my disc is broken!"
Seriously, seeing as half the people responding above don't know what they're talking about,how is the average consumer supposed to know that their disc isn't playing because they need a better TV?
The amount of FUD surrounding this is really pissing me off, especially when supposedly reputable sources like the times end up shitting out absolute nonsense.
Actually, if they are really following the standard then content not requiring HDCP will go out full resolution over analog or digital. Content requiring HDCP should be degraded to standard definition on any non-HDCP connection.
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose immediate reaction was "say what?"
How does this work with respect to the GPL, requirements to release sourcecode, copyright, etc?
I came here to post exactly that.
It's the most obvious solution without spending hundreds (or thousands) on fancy equipment. With the best will in the world no equipment is going to magically make VoIP anywhere near FM quality broadcast material - all you can do is filter out some of the crap.
As the parent suggested, get an audio processing package, grab the noise profile, and strip it. You'd be surprised how good the results can be.
Anyone dumb enough to post their company's innermost secrets on their blog deserves exactly what they get.
Similarly, any boss who fires an employee simply on the basis that they have a blog, regardless of content, deserves some sort of dressing down - although this is harder to achieve.
People are too often pushed into very polarised positions on the matter, which helps no-one. There's plenty of acceptable middle ground, if only someone could bring reasonable discussion to the table.
Beat this.
The company I worked at for a year during my industry placement had a combination of standard 100Mb ethernet, and Decnet. Yes, I kid you not, Decnet. There was a MicroVAX in the server room with a ton of parallel lines coming out of the board which snaked off to the desks of various engineers (as in metal) who had dumb terminals wired up to them. Yes, with greenscreens.
It gets worse. By some horrible horrible technical voodoo, the MicroVAX was connected (by a single TR system) to the main company ethernet switch, and was visable to machines running Pathworks as a node in a workgroup on the Windows network. Except sometimes it wasn't. It was all a bit hit and miss. And this was a mission critical peice of equipment.
Cheques are traceable.
Every cheque has is unique (a combination of a specific cheque number and the account number), and the cheque number will appear on a bank statement when the money is taken. They can also be cancelled if you think you've issued one in error.
So in short, with my previous example, the landlord cannot say he hasn't recieved the deposit from me, because I have a bank statement with a record of the cheque which I gave to him being paid out.
The advantage is that you can physically hand them off to someone.
They are still used in the UK to some extent, although not for anything like wages - well, not from a reputable workplace anyway!!
Generally they're used to transfer small sums to private individuals. For example, I just paid a £50 deposit for a student house next year by cheque. However, I'll be paying the rent by standing order from my bank account. The cheque was just easier for a one time small payment.
Once an ID system is in place, you have a way to uniquely identify everyone in the country. Those from abroad would be given a temporary ID when they pass through Customs/Immigration. Basically, it makes it damn easy to identify those who have entered the country illegaly as they will have no ID and no biometric data held.
So what you're saying is that, once the ID cards are in place and all legitimate inbound travellers get temporary ID, the only way to find illegal immigrants is to stop everyone and ask for their ID until you find someone who doesn't have any?
Am I the only one seeing the stupidity of this argument?
Illegal immigrants are not going to pop down the Jobcentre. They're not going to try and open bank accounts. They're not going to register for social security.
They're going to be handed off to a gangmaster as soon as they hit the shore of this fair isle, who will pay them a pittance in a brown paper envelope while keeping 20 of them in a flat over a chipshop designed to sleep 2. None of this, so far as I can see, will be hindered by the lack of an ID card.
That's some impressive DIY.
However, in my country (the UK), you can't just slap up something like that without going through an extremely tedious planning consultation with the local authority - usually your city or district council. This is both expensive (all has to be nice and legal etc) and time consuming. If you put it up without planning, you can apply for retrospective planning permission, but if it's refused then you have to tear it down (or the men in suits come do it for you). Quite a deterrant to similar DIY projects.
What sort of approval (if any) is needed for this sort of thing stateside?
You pretty much summed up my take on this.
If it truely does work, then it's a huge discovery - I just hope the "owners" can put aside huge profits for once, and make the drug available for as near cost as practicable.
Not only that, but:
Partnering with Fiat? I wouldn't trust such a system to get me to the end of the drive. Having owned two Fiats before (no I don't know why I got the second one either), I can safely say the only thing likely to be less reliable than the Microsoft kit will be the actual electronics in the car.
Seriously, I think they make them out of silly string or something. The last one I owned cost me more in repairs than it did to buy (about $1300 of repairs).
1: As a proof of concept, it's a good start. I was always rather unsure how practical all this QC stuff actually was, as although the benefits look great, the technology seems to be incredibly complex.
2: It's a nice slap in the face for the various people who still doubt the validity of quantum theory itself. The fact that this is possible shows it's definately on the right lines.
Jesus christ that's a weak effort.
As has already been pointed out, it makes no allowance for proxy access. Obviously they're not really logging, but few simple lines of PHP (or equiv in any other language) can pull the real IP from a non-anonymising proxy:
The Register are also carrying the story, and claiming that products across the range (Laptop/Desktop/Server) are being sourced.
To me, this makes little sense. I think we can all agree that the Pentium-M is superior for laptops, so there is little point in Dell producing AMD based laptops, especially given the AMD ones will be more expensive once subsidies from Intel are accounted for.
Desktops are a similar story - there AMD has the superior processor, but it's still going to wind up more expensive thanks to Intel.
Servers are the only market where this seems to be a good move, as it will allow Dell to flog dual-core server rigs which Intel are currently unable to provide.
Unless I'm mising something of course...
Doesn't the prospect of a more efficent computer count then?
If this scales to a useful level, you'd need much less power to run such a processor as it wouldn't all be being burnt off as heat - so your mobile phone could last much longer on a single charge, etc etc.
Sounds like reason enough to at least give the technology a chance to me...
I'm not quite sure where you seem to be going with this rant.
Are you trying to dismiss the research out of hand, or just implying that this was the next logical step from the previous development?
You'd think with all Apple's advertising resources, they'd have had "Tim from marketing" put it in his pocket for a day just to test it.
Obviously not. It does seem something of an oversight to launch the product way before the covers and cases are available too. I wonder how long it'll be before we see a 2G nano with modified screen coating...
Slashdot Mirror
er, yeah.
Exactly.
Macs are pretty much the same as Vista's going to be, and Linux is an order of magnitude more confusing for non-technical users.
People get pissed at the first little change and make these "threats" to change platform without doing any research or having the first clue what they're talking about. It makes you look stupid guys.
- Mummy, better security makes it an infentisimal amount more challenging to hawk our products!
- Woah no! We don't like this game explorer concept!
- Waaaah, parental controls prevent kids who shouldn't be playing our games anyway from playing them!
- Boo hoo, trying to run a game from outside the game explorer results in strange behaviour (this is the only legitimate complaint)
It just sounds like a list of whiney bitching... because it is.I mean seriously, Microsoft have gone out of their way to improve gaming on Vista and all these guys can do is complain that kids are properly protected and that LUA makes pushing their product harder? I'm sorry, but I'll take an extra security dialog to get a demo if it results in fewer of the general internet-unsavvy users infecting themselves, and Microsoft are NOT your marketing company; it's not their concern that your strategy can't cope with a minor change.
Jesus christ.
What about all the work that's gone into DX10? All the consultations with game studios and hardware developers? The tightening of the requirements for cards to be certified as DX10 capable which is designed to make your jobs easier?
Quit the ungrateful highschool bitching and respond to change.
It's something that tends to happen in the real world, and it's for the better.
READ THE GODDAMN SPECIFICATION BEFORE YOU SPOUT OUT BOLLOCKS!
Link 2.4.1.1 DVI (Digital) DVI is a high-speed, high-quality, digital pixel interface, developed by the PC industry. It is used in place of analog VGA to connect to PC monitors. It can provide very high resolutions by paralleling separate channels. Intel's HDCP protection is available for DVI, but is not always implemented by hardware manufacturers. HDCP is approved by the content industry, so DVI with HDCP is a great output solution for protected content. In contrast, DVI without HDCP is definitely not liked by content owners, because it provides a pristine digital interface that can be captured cleanly. When playing premium content such as HD-DVD and Blu-Ray DVD, PVP-OPM will be required to turn off or constrict the quality of unprotected DVI. As a result, a regular DVI monitor will either get slightly fuzzy or go black, with a polite message explaining that it doesn't meet security requirements. So, to correct:
- HD will output flawlessly on any output when HDCP is not requested by the content producer
- If HDCP is requested, the content can either be degraded to standard definition or blocked completely
- It will be degraded, not blocked. Content providers are greedy but not stupid
That times article is retarded, and makes it sound as though you can't watch HD on a digital monitor at all but "huuuuuuuurrrr it'll be just fine on analog." To reiterate, content providers might be greedy but they're not stupid. Given the option of degrading or blocking, they will go for degrading so that you can be enticed to think how much better it would be in HD if you go buy their fancy kit, and also to reduce all the complaints of "my disc is broken!"Seriously, seeing as half the people responding above don't know what they're talking about,how is the average consumer supposed to know that their disc isn't playing because they need a better TV?
The amount of FUD surrounding this is really pissing me off, especially when supposedly reputable sources like the times end up shitting out absolute nonsense.
Actually, if they are really following the standard then content not requiring HDCP will go out full resolution over analog or digital. Content requiring HDCP should be degraded to standard definition on any non-HDCP connection.
The OP needs to see this.
I'm glad I'm not the only one whose immediate reaction was "say what?"
How does this work with respect to the GPL, requirements to release sourcecode, copyright, etc?
...I mean, what could possibly go wrong?
I came here to post exactly that.
It's the most obvious solution without spending hundreds (or thousands) on fancy equipment. With the best will in the world no equipment is going to magically make VoIP anywhere near FM quality broadcast material - all you can do is filter out some of the crap.
As the parent suggested, get an audio processing package, grab the noise profile, and strip it. You'd be surprised how good the results can be.
Anyone dumb enough to post their company's innermost secrets on their blog deserves exactly what they get.
Similarly, any boss who fires an employee simply on the basis that they have a blog, regardless of content, deserves some sort of dressing down - although this is harder to achieve.
People are too often pushed into very polarised positions on the matter, which helps no-one. There's plenty of acceptable middle ground, if only someone could bring reasonable discussion to the table.
Beat this.
The company I worked at for a year during my industry placement had a combination of standard 100Mb ethernet, and Decnet. Yes, I kid you not, Decnet. There was a MicroVAX in the server room with a ton of parallel lines coming out of the board which snaked off to the desks of various engineers (as in metal) who had dumb terminals wired up to them. Yes, with greenscreens.
It gets worse. By some horrible horrible technical voodoo, the MicroVAX was connected (by a single TR system) to the main company ethernet switch, and was visable to machines running Pathworks as a node in a workgroup on the Windows network. Except sometimes it wasn't. It was all a bit hit and miss. And this was a mission critical peice of equipment.
Decnet over Ethernet via Token Ring. Arrrrrrrgh!
Cheques are traceable.
Every cheque has is unique (a combination of a specific cheque number and the account number), and the cheque number will appear on a bank statement when the money is taken. They can also be cancelled if you think you've issued one in error.
So in short, with my previous example, the landlord cannot say he hasn't recieved the deposit from me, because I have a bank statement with a record of the cheque which I gave to him being paid out.
The advantage is that you can physically hand them off to someone.
They are still used in the UK to some extent, although not for anything like wages - well, not from a reputable workplace anyway!!
Generally they're used to transfer small sums to private individuals. For example, I just paid a £50 deposit for a student house next year by cheque. However, I'll be paying the rent by standing order from my bank account. The cheque was just easier for a one time small payment.
Immigration.
Once an ID system is in place, you have a way to uniquely identify everyone in the country. Those from abroad would be given a temporary ID when they pass through Customs/Immigration. Basically, it makes it damn easy to identify those who have entered the country illegaly as they will have no ID and no biometric data held.
So what you're saying is that, once the ID cards are in place and all legitimate inbound travellers get temporary ID, the only way to find illegal immigrants is to stop everyone and ask for their ID until you find someone who doesn't have any?
Am I the only one seeing the stupidity of this argument?
Illegal immigrants are not going to pop down the Jobcentre. They're not going to try and open bank accounts. They're not going to register for social security.
They're going to be handed off to a gangmaster as soon as they hit the shore of this fair isle, who will pay them a pittance in a brown paper envelope while keeping 20 of them in a flat over a chipshop designed to sleep 2. None of this, so far as I can see, will be hindered by the lack of an ID card.
That's some impressive DIY.
However, in my country (the UK), you can't just slap up something like that without going through an extremely tedious planning consultation with the local authority - usually your city or district council. This is both expensive (all has to be nice and legal etc) and time consuming. If you put it up without planning, you can apply for retrospective planning permission, but if it's refused then you have to tear it down (or the men in suits come do it for you). Quite a deterrant to similar DIY projects.
What sort of approval (if any) is needed for this sort of thing stateside?
You pretty much summed up my take on this.
If it truely does work, then it's a huge discovery - I just hope the "owners" can put aside huge profits for once, and make the drug available for as near cost as practicable.
Not only that, but:
Partnering with Fiat? I wouldn't trust such a system to get me to the end of the drive. Having owned two Fiats before (no I don't know why I got the second one either), I can safely say the only thing likely to be less reliable than the Microsoft kit will be the actual electronics in the car.
Seriously, I think they make them out of silly string or something. The last one I owned cost me more in repairs than it did to buy (about $1300 of repairs).
...all true!
Whenever I've been without a beer for a while, the pain just kicks in man. Oh the terrible pain!
1: As a proof of concept, it's a good start. I was always rather unsure how practical all this QC stuff actually was, as although the benefits look great, the technology seems to be incredibly complex.
2: It's a nice slap in the face for the various people who still doubt the validity of quantum theory itself. The fact that this is possible shows it's definately on the right lines.
The Register are also carrying the story, and claiming that products across the range (Laptop/Desktop/Server) are being sourced.
To me, this makes little sense. I think we can all agree that the Pentium-M is superior for laptops, so there is little point in Dell producing AMD based laptops, especially given the AMD ones will be more expensive once subsidies from Intel are accounted for.
Desktops are a similar story - there AMD has the superior processor, but it's still going to wind up more expensive thanks to Intel.
Servers are the only market where this seems to be a good move, as it will allow Dell to flog dual-core server rigs which Intel are currently unable to provide.
Unless I'm mising something of course...
God save us, they hadn't thought of that!
Quick, we need someone to develop some sort of amazing technology that can BLOCK EVIL MAGNETIC RAYS!!
Magnetic sheilding is hardly that difficult now is it.
Doesn't the prospect of a more efficent computer count then?
If this scales to a useful level, you'd need much less power to run such a processor as it wouldn't all be being burnt off as heat - so your mobile phone could last much longer on a single charge, etc etc.
Sounds like reason enough to at least give the technology a chance to me...
I'm not quite sure where you seem to be going with this rant. Are you trying to dismiss the research out of hand, or just implying that this was the next logical step from the previous development?
You'd think with all Apple's advertising resources, they'd have had "Tim from marketing" put it in his pocket for a day just to test it.
Obviously not. It does seem something of an oversight to launch the product way before the covers and cases are available too. I wonder how long it'll be before we see a 2G nano with modified screen coating...