Tivo appears to require a land-line until you're up and running.
Nope. You can do guided set-up over a wired adapter with DHCP if you set the dial prefix to,#401. This works for Series 2 SA TiVos and series 1s that have had ethernet cards added (like those from 9th tee).
1. Contracts cannot cover situations which involve breaking the law. You do not have a legally binding contract if you go out and make an agreement with someone where you will pay them to burn down your warehouse. If the subject of the confidentiality agreement is an illegal act by the company, I think he can argue that that contract is not binding.
2. Even if we take as valid the agreement, disclosure to law enforcement in the normal course of their investigatory duties does not constitute a violation of trade secrets laws. If he goes to the cops, he's probably in the clear. It's another story entirely if he instead goes to the New York Times, though if he's really sure the company is violating the law, see #1.
My new Samsung 50" DLP device is great. I have a mac mini plugged into the DVI port and a DirecTiVo into the HDMI port. And nothing whatsoever connected up to the RF port. The tuner is analog only, so I have no use for it. The part that kind of sucks is that although they have a setup menu that allows you to exclude any ports from the input selection rotation, there is one port that cannot be excluded.
Which one? Take a guess.
So whenever I flip from the mac to the TiVo, it's two clicks instead of one, with a blue screen inbetween.
So I say to any TV manufacturers listening: Do not center any part of the UI around the tuner. It is optional. If I could have paid the same price for a monitor only, I would have done so happily.
That's great, but what about when you host a domain for your extended family that sends through 20+ ISP severs.
Why don't you set up an authenticated SMTP server for them? If you're already hosting the domain for them, it probably isn't that much more effort.
If that's not an option then you have no choice but to list all the servers they may send mail from. Or you could put a record up that says "+all" and forgo the protection SPF affords you.
A cracker -- the correct term -- is a person who uses computers to do Bad Things (breaking copy protection, committing electronic break-in and theft, writing viruses, etc).
One of those things is not like the others. Breaking copy protection allows fair use where there was none. I don't consider, for example, DVDJon (or the folks he fronts for, if that's the case) to be evil, and I don't think anyone else here besides the MPAA's trolls do either.
It's not really tiered anymore. You can have n (3=n=8) disks out per month for n*$6-$.01. That is, there are plans now for all numbers of disks between 3 and 8. Where n=2, you have a choice of capped at 4 ($12.99) or uncapped ($14.99), and there is a 1-out uncapped plan for $9.99.
Often, copy protection comes in the form of a multisession disk. The first session is standard red book audio tracks, to retain compatibility with a standard player. The second session is a data track with DRMed digital versions of the tracks. Often, the data session will also have some sort of autorun trojan designed to prevent you from accessing the audio session.
If you look at the bottom of the CD, you used to be able to see a band where there was the break between sessions. You'd then take the sharpie and obscure the data session (the outer one) and put the CD back in. You'd then only get the standard audio tracks. Arrrr.
They figured that out, though, and started obscuring the band between the sessions, so it would become a bit of a guessing game. How far in do you go before you start hitting the last audio track? If you use a dry-erase marker instead of a sharpie, you just have to put the disk in over and over, making adjustments until you get it right.
So far as I know, there's no way to make a CD that's compatible with CD players other than to have a complete, correct audio session at the start, so so far as I know, this method still works on all DRMed CDs.
1. There's no need to use a different kernel. Darwin is available for x86 and is open source. Apple is sure to try to tie the binary-only portions of OS X down to their specialized hardware, but just getting the machine to boot Darwin x86 is already a done deal.
2. You can't replace Darwin with some other kernel without an extensive syscall compatibility layer of some sort. That's not to say it's impossible - take a look at the Linuxulator in FreeBSD for an example of that sort of thing. Wine is another example.
Only if the new Intel based Macs are significantly more expensive than say a Dell.
If you get what you pay for, and if Apple keeps their high standards, then off course they'll be more expensive than a Dell P.O.S.
Don't forget that MS also makes a lot of money on their applications. They will still write them for the new x86 Macs.
If OS X for Intel can be made to work on beige-box PCs, then don't count on Microsoft to keep shipping Office for Mac. Of course, by then perhaps iWork will have grown a spreadsheet and it will be moot.
I suspect that MS will sell many copies of VPC to run on the new x86 Macs.
The problem is that PearPC will be a lot faster having been able to ditch the CPU emulation, and there will be tons of Darwin installer helper programs that will either help the OS X CDs boot or do a Darwin x86 install and then rip the x86 binary frameworks off a (presumably legally purchased) OS X Intel install CD so that everyone will be able to run OS X on a PC they bought at Walmart. That will end Apple's computer hardware business. Without platform differences to separate them, it means Apple and Microsoft will compete heads-up. The last time His Steveness tried that, it didn't work out so well.
A. They're going to sell "Intel Macs." That is, these machines will not be compatible in any way with traditional x86 machines. Personally, I think this is the most likely case. The trouble with this is that the underpinnings of OS X, namely Darwin, already run on stock x86 hardware. Presumably Apple will expend some effort to make it difficult to simply copy the binary-only parts of Intel OS X and drop them down on top of Darwin x86, but I guarantee there will be a small army of hackers working feverishly day and night to defeat any such scheme. Apple can't really use ROMs merely as a way to lock down OS X. In fact, they were on the losing side of a pioneering case in this regard (Apple v. Franklin). The gist of it is that you cannot use the mere presence of a copyrighted piece of software as a "gatekeeper" in hardware space. That is, if you test to see if "COPYRIGHT APPLE COMPUTER" appears at some spot in the ROMs, you can't bar someone else from making a ROM that says "NOT COPYRIGHT APPLE COMPUTER" starting 4 bytes earlier in order to clone their hardware. Going further, the courts have recently said that if there is only one way to code something required for compatibility, then that one way cannot be copyrighted (this was the printer cartridge reverse engineering case of a few months ago). So if you make a crypto checksum of the ROMs a gatekeeper for booting, you lose the copyrightability of those ROMs. At the very least, I give it a year, maybe two before VMWare has a checkbox in the configuration to let you specify an "Apple" vs "P.C." guest hardware configuration. That leads us directly to...
B. Either their attempt at protecting OS X fails (see above for why this is inevitable) or they don't even bother and OS X runs on a Dell (maybe even with Apple doing a deal with Dell to make it an option). Obviously, this puts Apple completely out of the hardware business. It makes them a software and accessory company competing straight up with Microsoft. His Steveness ought to know better. After all, he's been down this road once before. Maybe this is a fairer fight than Microsoft has had since the 8 bit days, but let's face it: how many of you would be willing to bet Apple's future on the outcome?
At most, they might send a certified letter and an email at the same time (and so the email will arrive first) but I suspect that even that's rare.
It's becoming less so. I was sent a C&D not to long ago (over trademark issues), and got the dual notification (e-mail first, then a copy certified with return receipt).
But there is no "recycling fee" imposed on the purchase of a new car. Why? Becuase recycling cars makes economic sense on its own. If it did not, I can assure you, we'd have a hundred years worth of cars in a landfill somewhere. And the world would still turn on its axis and we'd still make and use automobiles and nothing would be any different - except there would be a few more golf courses built on top of landfills. Big deal.
The point is, if we really were running out of landfill space, the cost of dumping a load of garbage would go up to a point where recycling would pay. In fact, eventually it would pay to dig up old landfills and recycle the stuff that's there. Think about it: they tell us we have to recycle to keep things from being burried in landfills that last for thousands of years. If that's true, they'll still be there when (more like "if") it ever becomes profitable to recycle them.
Right now, it costs 3 to 5 times more for a city to handle a ton of recyclables than it does for that same city to just take those recyclables that they so carefully collected from the citizens who so carefully separated them, and just bury them in the same landfill with the garbage. And for what? Recycling does more damage to the environment than landfills and the goods you get from recycled "raw materials" are crappier and more expensive than then ones you get from new materials (with the notable exceptions of steel and aluminum, though to get metal good enough to use, you do have to mix new metal in).
The real question to be asked here is who bears the burden for making sure that computers and electronics actually get recycled, rather than dumped in a landfill.
Actually, the real question is what would be so bad about just dumping them in a landfill. Landfills are not bad for the environment and we're not running out of space for them. Recycling is costly and bad for the environment (for example, dioxin from pulp bleaching).
It takes more energy and is more costly to the environment to recycle just about everything (the one exception in the whole world being aluminum cans) than it is to just bury it in a landfill. The whole "we're running out of landfill space" is chicken-little nonsense.
It plays a high-frequency (I don't remember the frequency, but it's high enough not to disturb the black and white sets) sine wave
The sine wave is 3.579545 MHz (315/88). The point is that it's 113.75 times the horizontal refresh rate, which is 525 times the field rate, which is 60/1.001 Hz. Those numbers may seem whacky, but they were probably chosen to either avoid or take advantage of harmonics / resonances in other parts of the system. For example, originally 60 Hz was chosen to try and keep the picture synchronized with the 60 Hz electricity that was running the lights in both the studios and the homes where the TVs were - no rolling bars. It was shifted a tiny bit when color arrived, but I don't know exactly why.
The sine wave is imposed upon the luminance signal, true, but its amplitude is also important as well as phase shift. Each line, between the end of the horizontal sync pulse and the start of the line contains a few cycles of colorburst signal to be used as the phase reference against which the phase of the color information is compared. The amplitude of the color information is the chrominance (aka Saturation). The luminance (aka Value, often abreviated Y) and Hue values round out the HSV triplet. Only NTSC changes the axes somewhat. Instead of HSV (aka YUV, only the V here means something else), they call it YIQ. The subtle math of RGB, HSV, YUV, YIQ and the like are, alas, beyond me. However, if you start with YIQ, you can modulate I and Q together to make C, or Chroma. A YC cable gives you S-Video. Mix those two together and you get ordinary composite video. DVDs and other MPEG encoded material start with YUV, since you don't have to devote nearly as much bandwidth to the color information as the luminance (because of how the human eye works), so it's easy to make a DVD player output S-Video.
How is a stateful firewall in combination with 6to4 any different than the NAT you're talking about (except that it is more versitile, since you can permit, say, more than one ssh connection inwards on port 22)? Don't let TCP syn-no-ACK packets come in and don't let UDP packets come in unless they match one that went out less than N seconds ago. Problem solved. Or at least solved as well as a NAT typically will solve them.
I've been saying that this is overdue for a while.
I'd bet that what they're doing is setting up 6to4 and advertising the 6to4 prefix to the inside LAN. Makes perfect sense.
They could also be implementing NATPT and a DNS proxy, but that would be, IMHO, more trouble than it's worth (it presumes that all of your applications are IPv6 aware and that you can't, for some reason, set up IPv4+NAT). Much more likely that they're doing traditional NAT for IPv4, and doing IPv6 in parallel with 6to4.
Alas, I got my router appliance from Vonage, so it will probably be a while before that sees an upgrade. But I have another machine doing IPv6 router duty anyway, so it's no big loss.
Check out 6to4. The way it works, you wind up taking an optimal path (at least, as optimal as the IPv4 path is) to any other 6to4 user, which is probably a substantial chunk of current IPv6 users. Because of RFC 3068, the path to any non-6to4 IPv6 host should not suck too terribly badly (though there will probably always need to be more relay routers set up to do the appropriate magic with BGP).
It's also amazingly easy to set up. There is no excuse for Netgear, Linksys and the like not putting 6to4 support in their little NAT router appliances at this point.
Slashdot Mirror
You can meet many former 'homosexuals'; you will never meet a former 'African-American'."
Are they trying to say that I'll never meet Michael Jackson?
Burn, Karma, Burn...
Nope. You can do guided set-up over a wired adapter with DHCP if you set the dial prefix to ,#401. This works for Series 2 SA TiVos and series 1s that have had ethernet cards added (like those from 9th tee).
Except for a couple of things:
1. Contracts cannot cover situations which involve breaking the law. You do not have a legally binding contract if you go out and make an agreement with someone where you will pay them to burn down your warehouse. If the subject of the confidentiality agreement is an illegal act by the company, I think he can argue that that contract is not binding.
2. Even if we take as valid the agreement, disclosure to law enforcement in the normal course of their investigatory duties does not constitute a violation of trade secrets laws. If he goes to the cops, he's probably in the clear. It's another story entirely if he instead goes to the New York Times, though if he's really sure the company is violating the law, see #1.
It's not a TV anymore. It's just a monitor.
My new Samsung 50" DLP device is great. I have a mac mini plugged into the DVI port and a DirecTiVo into the HDMI port. And nothing whatsoever connected up to the RF port. The tuner is analog only, so I have no use for it. The part that kind of sucks is that although they have a setup menu that allows you to exclude any ports from the input selection rotation, there is one port that cannot be excluded.
Which one? Take a guess.
So whenever I flip from the mac to the TiVo, it's two clicks instead of one, with a blue screen inbetween.
So I say to any TV manufacturers listening: Do not center any part of the UI around the tuner. It is optional. If I could have paid the same price for a monitor only, I would have done so happily.
You're welcome.
Why don't you set up an authenticated SMTP server for them? If you're already hosting the domain for them, it probably isn't that much more effort.
If that's not an option then you have no choice but to list all the servers they may send mail from. Or you could put a record up that says "+all" and forgo the protection SPF affords you.
It will be worthless until the instant that Verizon publishes a record, whereupon it will instantly cease to be worthless.
/.
The alternative is you having to poll Verizon's DNS zone waiting for them to publish a record and THEN publish your own.
It's less work to simply publish a record now, and it will be effective more quickly.
You could even publish a record and then ask/cajole/agitate for Verizon to publish one now too.
Either way accomplishes more than whining on
So here's your SPF record:
v=spf1 include:verizon.com -all
If verizon doesn't have an SPF record, then it's a wash. When they publish one, then it will immediately be able to cover your domain as well.
That's a pretty mean thing to say.
And not very accurate either. If it was written by /.ers, where are the GNAA trolls, Natalie Portman Hot Grits, Beowulf clusters, etc, etc, etc?
A cracker -- the correct term -- is a person who uses computers to do Bad Things (breaking copy protection, committing electronic break-in and theft, writing viruses, etc).
One of those things is not like the others. Breaking copy protection allows fair use where there was none. I don't consider, for example, DVDJon (or the folks he fronts for, if that's the case) to be evil, and I don't think anyone else here besides the MPAA's trolls do either.
That's what I get for not previewing.
3<=n<=8, not 3=n=8. Thanks, Slashcode, for not doing entity substitution for me.
It's not really tiered anymore. You can have n (3=n=8) disks out per month for n*$6-$.01. That is, there are plans now for all numbers of disks between 3 and 8. Where n=2, you have a choice of capped at 4 ($12.99) or uncapped ($14.99), and there is a 1-out uncapped plan for $9.99.
My favorite way to say it is like this:
To the media, you are not the customer. You are the product being sold.
Reed Hastings is the CEO.
Often, copy protection comes in the form of a multisession disk. The first session is standard red book audio tracks, to retain compatibility with a standard player. The second session is a data track with DRMed digital versions of the tracks. Often, the data session will also have some sort of autorun trojan designed to prevent you from accessing the audio session.
If you look at the bottom of the CD, you used to be able to see a band where there was the break between sessions. You'd then take the sharpie and obscure the data session (the outer one) and put the CD back in. You'd then only get the standard audio tracks. Arrrr.
They figured that out, though, and started obscuring the band between the sessions, so it would become a bit of a guessing game. How far in do you go before you start hitting the last audio track? If you use a dry-erase marker instead of a sharpie, you just have to put the disk in over and over, making adjustments until you get it right.
So far as I know, there's no way to make a CD that's compatible with CD players other than to have a complete, correct audio session at the start, so so far as I know, this method still works on all DRMed CDs.
1. There's no need to use a different kernel. Darwin is available for x86 and is open source. Apple is sure to try to tie the binary-only portions of OS X down to their specialized hardware, but just getting the machine to boot Darwin x86 is already a done deal.
2. You can't replace Darwin with some other kernel without an extensive syscall compatibility layer of some sort. That's not to say it's impossible - take a look at the Linuxulator in FreeBSD for an example of that sort of thing. Wine is another example.
If you get what you pay for, and if Apple keeps their high standards, then off course they'll be more expensive than a Dell P.O.S.
Don't forget that MS also makes a lot of money on their applications. They will still write them for the new x86 Macs.
If OS X for Intel can be made to work on beige-box PCs, then don't count on Microsoft to keep shipping Office for Mac. Of course, by then perhaps iWork will have grown a spreadsheet and it will be moot.
I suspect that MS will sell many copies of VPC to run on the new x86 Macs.
The problem is that PearPC will be a lot faster having been able to ditch the CPU emulation, and there will be tons of Darwin installer helper programs that will either help the OS X CDs boot or do a Darwin x86 install and then rip the x86 binary frameworks off a (presumably legally purchased) OS X Intel install CD so that everyone will be able to run OS X on a PC they bought at Walmart. That will end Apple's computer hardware business. Without platform differences to separate them, it means Apple and Microsoft will compete heads-up. The last time His Steveness tried that, it didn't work out so well.
A. They're going to sell "Intel Macs." That is, these machines will not be compatible in any way with traditional x86 machines. Personally, I think this is the most likely case. The trouble with this is that the underpinnings of OS X, namely Darwin, already run on stock x86 hardware. Presumably Apple will expend some effort to make it difficult to simply copy the binary-only parts of Intel OS X and drop them down on top of Darwin x86, but I guarantee there will be a small army of hackers working feverishly day and night to defeat any such scheme. Apple can't really use ROMs merely as a way to lock down OS X. In fact, they were on the losing side of a pioneering case in this regard (Apple v. Franklin). The gist of it is that you cannot use the mere presence of a copyrighted piece of software as a "gatekeeper" in hardware space. That is, if you test to see if "COPYRIGHT APPLE COMPUTER" appears at some spot in the ROMs, you can't bar someone else from making a ROM that says "NOT COPYRIGHT APPLE COMPUTER" starting 4 bytes earlier in order to clone their hardware. Going further, the courts have recently said that if there is only one way to code something required for compatibility, then that one way cannot be copyrighted (this was the printer cartridge reverse engineering case of a few months ago). So if you make a crypto checksum of the ROMs a gatekeeper for booting, you lose the copyrightability of those ROMs. At the very least, I give it a year, maybe two before VMWare has a checkbox in the configuration to let you specify an "Apple" vs "P.C." guest hardware configuration. That leads us directly to...
B. Either their attempt at protecting OS X fails (see above for why this is inevitable) or they don't even bother and OS X runs on a Dell (maybe even with Apple doing a deal with Dell to make it an option). Obviously, this puts Apple completely out of the hardware business. It makes them a software and accessory company competing straight up with Microsoft. His Steveness ought to know better. After all, he's been down this road once before. Maybe this is a fairer fight than Microsoft has had since the 8 bit days, but let's face it: how many of you would be willing to bet Apple's future on the outcome?
It's becoming less so. I was sent a C&D not to long ago (over trademark issues), and got the dual notification (e-mail first, then a copy certified with return receipt).
But there is no "recycling fee" imposed on the purchase of a new car. Why? Becuase recycling cars makes economic sense on its own. If it did not, I can assure you, we'd have a hundred years worth of cars in a landfill somewhere. And the world would still turn on its axis and we'd still make and use automobiles and nothing would be any different - except there would be a few more golf courses built on top of landfills. Big deal.
The point is, if we really were running out of landfill space, the cost of dumping a load of garbage would go up to a point where recycling would pay. In fact, eventually it would pay to dig up old landfills and recycle the stuff that's there. Think about it: they tell us we have to recycle to keep things from being burried in landfills that last for thousands of years. If that's true, they'll still be there when (more like "if") it ever becomes profitable to recycle them.
Right now, it costs 3 to 5 times more for a city to handle a ton of recyclables than it does for that same city to just take those recyclables that they so carefully collected from the citizens who so carefully separated them, and just bury them in the same landfill with the garbage. And for what? Recycling does more damage to the environment than landfills and the goods you get from recycled "raw materials" are crappier and more expensive than then ones you get from new materials (with the notable exceptions of steel and aluminum, though to get metal good enough to use, you do have to mix new metal in).
Actually, the real question is what would be so bad about just dumping them in a landfill. Landfills are not bad for the environment and we're not running out of space for them. Recycling is costly and bad for the environment (for example, dioxin from pulp bleaching).
It takes more energy and is more costly to the environment to recycle just about everything (the one exception in the whole world being aluminum cans) than it is to just bury it in a landfill. The whole "we're running out of landfill space" is chicken-little nonsense.
The sine wave is 3.579545 MHz (315/88). The point is that it's 113.75 times the horizontal refresh rate, which is 525 times the field rate, which is 60/1.001 Hz. Those numbers may seem whacky, but they were probably chosen to either avoid or take advantage of harmonics / resonances in other parts of the system. For example, originally 60 Hz was chosen to try and keep the picture synchronized with the 60 Hz electricity that was running the lights in both the studios and the homes where the TVs were - no rolling bars. It was shifted a tiny bit when color arrived, but I don't know exactly why.
The sine wave is imposed upon the luminance signal, true, but its amplitude is also important as well as phase shift. Each line, between the end of the horizontal sync pulse and the start of the line contains a few cycles of colorburst signal to be used as the phase reference against which the phase of the color information is compared. The amplitude of the color information is the chrominance (aka Saturation). The luminance (aka Value, often abreviated Y) and Hue values round out the HSV triplet. Only NTSC changes the axes somewhat. Instead of HSV (aka YUV, only the V here means something else), they call it YIQ. The subtle math of RGB, HSV, YUV, YIQ and the like are, alas, beyond me. However, if you start with YIQ, you can modulate I and Q together to make C, or Chroma. A YC cable gives you S-Video. Mix those two together and you get ordinary composite video. DVDs and other MPEG encoded material start with YUV, since you don't have to devote nearly as much bandwidth to the color information as the luminance (because of how the human eye works), so it's easy to make a DVD player output S-Video.
How is a stateful firewall in combination with 6to4 any different than the NAT you're talking about (except that it is more versitile, since you can permit, say, more than one ssh connection inwards on port 22)? Don't let TCP syn-no-ACK packets come in and don't let UDP packets come in unless they match one that went out less than N seconds ago. Problem solved. Or at least solved as well as a NAT typically will solve them.
I'd bet that what they're doing is setting up 6to4 and advertising the 6to4 prefix to the inside LAN. Makes perfect sense.
They could also be implementing NATPT and a DNS proxy, but that would be, IMHO, more trouble than it's worth (it presumes that all of your applications are IPv6 aware and that you can't, for some reason, set up IPv4+NAT). Much more likely that they're doing traditional NAT for IPv4, and doing IPv6 in parallel with 6to4.
Alas, I got my router appliance from Vonage, so it will probably be a while before that sees an upgrade. But I have another machine doing IPv6 router duty anyway, so it's no big loss.
Check out 6to4. The way it works, you wind up taking an optimal path (at least, as optimal as the IPv4 path is) to any other 6to4 user, which is probably a substantial chunk of current IPv6 users. Because of RFC 3068, the path to any non-6to4 IPv6 host should not suck too terribly badly (though there will probably always need to be more relay routers set up to do the appropriate magic with BGP).
It's also amazingly easy to set up. There is no excuse for Netgear, Linksys and the like not putting 6to4 support in their little NAT router appliances at this point.