"since Sky will *never* release the details of their encryption to *anyone*"
This is true, NDS , who are contracted to provide sky with its encryption systems, have never (and most likely will never) release any details in any way regarding any part of the crypto. But, a number of details are known about the encryption scheme as gleaned from patent documents and the such:
Sky is using the videoguard encryption which (so I am told) uses an industry standard scrambling algorithm called the CSA. (see http://csa.irde.to/). The algorithm is known and if the keys are known, the stream can be (and has been) easily decrypted. This is where the problem lies - the encryption relies not on the complexity of the algorithm or in secure distribution of keys but instead the algorithm used to generate the keys (done by your viewing card), as this is much more suited to a many-to-one service, such as content distribution. The key generation algorithm uses a closed and extremely complex algorithm and although the keys can be intercepted, they are practically impossible to predict. So even if this key generation algorithm was cracked (rumours suggest that in the past it has been) the broadcaster could easily encrypt the streams using a new algorithm and new viewing cards issued quickly, thus preventing free tv to any wanabee hackers.
It wouldn't be the first time that Apple would have been in this situation. It would seem that some parties are willing to sue over a code name. Fortunately rationality ensued, and Apple won.
I struggle to see the effectiveness of DRM of this kind - if I can listen to the track on my hi-fi I can connect my sound card to line out consequently rip the track and place it on p2p. There may a little additional noise on the track, but if you're willing to listen to an mp3, you probably wont mind:). If I can listen to the track on my mac, I can use wiretap to capture the audio and convert it to the format of my choice. The time consuming nature of these procedures may stop many casual users from uploading p2p files, but for a popular track (the sort that the record labels are trying to protect) we can expect at least one person to be suitably determined rip the track in these ways, place it on p2p and then wide spread swapping will begin...
please correct me if I have misunderstood the nature of this problem
Possibly, but Apple is likely to be paying minimal costs for the current PPC processors and far less than for an equivilent Intel chip.
But what will be interesting would be to see if Apple swallows its own vanity and includes the intel logo and 3 note tune on their advertising - there are financial incentives set down by intel for doing so, but it would be something of an anti-climax to Apple's usual hip advertisements.
I think that I have just discovered an "undocumented feature" in iTunes 5 :
when "show duplicate songs" is selected from the edit menu, non-duplicate songs are displayed if the track name and artist are identical in both tracks. Surely it would be a better idea to calculate an md5 checksum or perhaps use CDDB data in order to prevent this.
I would have thought that this issue should be obvious...
There are two ways to go about this:
1. A textbook
2. A general reading book
If you have a limited background in mathematics or physics and aren't really determined to build this up to a high level, buy a general reading book. There are quite a few that are of good quality and easily comprehensible to a non-physicist following the success of Hawking's "A Brief History of Time (This is mostly cosmology though).
If you are really interested in learning relativity from a textbook, my favorite introductory textbook is this one, which is truly superb.
The prerequisites are Multivariable calculus, vector calculus and tensor analysis. This focuses on General relativity, but its short introduction to Special relativity takes a refreshingly geometric approach in deriving the Lorentz transformation and in solving problems.
If your interests are limited to special relativity you can find a good, and "in depth" introduction (only 184 pages long) in an "Introduction to Special Relativity" By Wolfgang Rindler. The requirements for this are similar to the above, but at a slightly lower level (Not much vector calculus as I recall). Although this text dwells on apparent paradoxes in its thorough discussion, it also focuses largely on the theoretical and mathematical aspects of the theory that may not be relevant to you.
If none of these appeals to you, a good equationless introduction to all sorts of new physics, built up from the foundations of Relativity and Quantum mechanics, to start with would be "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene.
Conceptually, it is very good and its analogies are very instructive - it does not its own hide poor communication of the basic and fundamental meaning of the theories by illustrating a point with reams of mathematics (this approach has its own advantages within mathematical physics, but isn't always useful to a beginner).
"b) There will be less programming challenges in porting games."
Why should this be? The underlying structure of Mac OS X is vastly different to Windows and this will not change with Apple using x86 hardware. Also, as it is likely that few games are written in assembly (which could cause a few headaches in porting from x86 to ppc) it will be no easier to port much of the non-graphics code. Admittedly, vectorized functions (Using MMX, SSE etc) will be easier to port, but there is still the matter of the Mac OS X windowing system and Quartz as well as replacing DirectX library functions with ones from OpenGL (or perhaps CoreImage in some cases).
This is not trivial, and poses one of the largest challenges in porting a game.
But it can be done, and a profit made, take a look at Aspyr et al.
IMHO, the change in architecture will not have dramatic effects on gaming (although we should see faster graphics cards, and better optimization) apart an increased market share, which should result in more games being ported.
Essentially, the system uses a custom media player (with in-built DRM) and p2p software to distribute segments of the file between users. Its architecture is very similar to Bittorent (in as much as a central seed server exists). If the pilot is successfull, it is likely that this technology could find its way into the set-top boxes of the future. This is a real possibility given that the UK telecoms network is soon to be completely overhauled.
Perhaps this is naive, but I really can't help but think that it's about time to replace the shuttle. (I'll list my reasons below)
1. Each shuttle was designed to have an operational life of 10 years, all have surpassed this age.
2. The shuttle has not had an admirable safety record - It was expected that 1 in each 100 flights would be unsuccessful and end in total failure (like Columbia) however 2 in 113 have ended in failure. I'm not sure what statistical distribution this was modelled on, but surely the number of failures are significantly larger than initially postulated.
3. The shuttle has intrinsic design flaws due to the politics of the cold war - it was hoped that the shuttle could be used for launching reconnaissance satellites and consequently the shuttle had to be fitted with a much larger cargo bay and develop vastly more thrust to deliver the large (approx. 18 tonnes) payloads to polar orbits. It was also hoped by the airforce (who demanded these changes) that after a single orbit the shuttle could land (should the mission be aborted), (against the wishes of NASA who preferred a "splash down") and so the shuttle was fitted with delta shaped wings that are prone to being stuck by debris due to their large size. As a result of all of this additional weight the shuttle had to be fitted with high thrust SRB's which are completely uncontrollable (unlike cryogenic propellants used by Apollo et al).
4. The shuttle sits on the side of its fuel tanks making a detachment impractical should an abort be called at lift off.
If safety concerns were paramount, the shuttle really should have been much smaller, with little wings sitting on top of a rocket propelled by cryogenic fuels.
It would seem that the advantages of a xServe cluster (altivec, 64-bit and good performance per watt) would be lost when Apple produces an x86 version when compared to a (inevitably) cheaper x86 Linux system. and, although this is probably quite a small market, it would be sad to see Apple loose it.
Does anyone have any opinions to how the loss of PPC will affect Apple in this area - are researchers more interested in OS than price:performance ?
Wow that G4's fast!
It is if you code in altivec.
How many do?
Very few.
Wow that Itanium's fast!
It is if you code for IA-64.
How many do?
Very few.
Hey guys, Lets build an Itanium PowerMac!
Has anyone seen this? (quoted from theregister.co.uk)
"The only 'benefit' will be that if you don't like Mac OS X, you'll be able to wipe it and install Windows on your Mac. Apple has said it won't stop users doing that, though it will prevent PC owners installing Mac OS X on their machines. For a minority, the ability to run Windows alongside Mac OS X will be advantageous, just as plenty of Linux users do the same, primarily to play the latest games."
Would you be persuaded to Switch to a Mac from Windows if you could easily change back again? Given Apple's excellent and coveted product design amongst consumers this could be a wise move.
Slashdot Mirror
"since Sky will *never* release the details of their encryption to *anyone*"
This is true, NDS , who are contracted to provide sky with its encryption systems, have never (and most likely will never) release any details in any way regarding any part of the crypto. But, a number of details are known about the encryption scheme as gleaned from patent documents and the such:
Sky is using the videoguard encryption which (so I am told) uses an industry standard scrambling algorithm called the CSA. (see http://csa.irde.to/). The algorithm is known and if the keys are known, the stream can be (and has been) easily decrypted. This is where the problem lies - the encryption relies not on the complexity of the algorithm or in secure distribution of keys but instead the algorithm used to generate the keys (done by your viewing card), as this is much more suited to a many-to-one service, such as content distribution. The key generation algorithm uses a closed and extremely complex algorithm and although the keys can be intercepted, they are practically impossible to predict. So even if this key generation algorithm was cracked (rumours suggest that in the past it has been) the broadcaster could easily encrypt the streams using a new algorithm and new viewing cards issued quickly, thus preventing free tv to any wanabee hackers.
It wouldn't be the first time that Apple would have been in this situation. It would seem that some parties are willing to sue over a code name. Fortunately rationality ensued, and Apple won.
Only in America...
"introverted individuals tend to have more brain activity in general"
This is hard to believe judging by the quality of an average slashdot post.
If Will Smith can do it, it must be true.
I struggle to see the effectiveness of DRM of this kind - if I can listen to the track on my hi-fi I can connect my sound card to line out consequently rip the track and place it on p2p. There may a little additional noise on the track, but if you're willing to listen to an mp3, you probably wont mind :). If I can listen to the track on my mac, I can use wiretap to capture the audio and convert it to the format of my choice. The time consuming nature of these procedures may stop many casual users from uploading p2p files, but for a popular track (the sort that the record labels are trying to protect) we can expect at least one person to be suitably determined rip the track in these ways, place it on p2p and then wide spread swapping will begin...
please correct me if I have misunderstood the nature of this problem
openBSD may be X, but sometimes I wish that OS X was openBSD.
I have a conspiracy theory:
The first man on mars will be British
The reason?
They're the only ones who will drink the bromine tea.
(sorry about the bad link...)
I think I've found some neat hidden messages in Apple's announcement, if you rearrange the letters you get the following cryptic clues:
h tml and http://www.anagramgenius.com/server.html)
Then geronimo
Meeting honor
hint
thin
heroine
remote
nitrogen home
ignore hot men
riot
in no other gem
So I'm expecting a diamond studded, highly addictive PVR, with air-con all in a package no bigger than 7 inches cubed.
Maybe its the new iMac.
(Thanks to http://blogs.pcworld.com/techlog/archives/000966.
Possibly, but Apple is likely to be paying minimal costs for the current PPC processors and far less than for an equivilent Intel chip.
But what will be interesting would be to see if Apple swallows its own vanity and includes the intel logo and 3 note tune on their advertising - there are financial incentives set down by intel for doing so, but it would be something of an anti-climax to Apple's usual hip advertisements.
I think that I have just discovered an "undocumented feature" in iTunes 5 :
when "show duplicate songs" is selected from the edit menu, non-duplicate songs are displayed if the track name and artist are identical in both tracks. Surely it would be a better idea to calculate an md5 checksum or perhaps use CDDB data in order to prevent this.
I would have thought that this issue should be obvious...
Interestingly, NetCraft it showing some recent activity on that domain - http://uptime.netcraft.com/up/graph?site=iphone.or g.
There are two ways to go about this:
1. A textbook
2. A general reading book
If you have a limited background in mathematics or physics and aren't really determined to build this up to a high level, buy a general reading book. There are quite a few that are of good quality and easily comprehensible to a non-physicist following the success of Hawking's "A Brief History of Time (This is mostly cosmology though).
If you are really interested in learning relativity from a textbook, my favorite introductory textbook is this one, which is truly superb.
The prerequisites are Multivariable calculus, vector calculus and tensor analysis. This focuses on General relativity, but its short introduction to Special relativity takes a refreshingly geometric approach in deriving the Lorentz transformation and in solving problems.
If your interests are limited to special relativity you can find a good, and "in depth" introduction (only 184 pages long) in an "Introduction to Special Relativity" By Wolfgang Rindler. The requirements for this are similar to the above, but at a slightly lower level (Not much vector calculus as I recall). Although this text dwells on apparent paradoxes in its thorough discussion, it also focuses largely on the theoretical and mathematical aspects of the theory that may not be relevant to you.
If none of these appeals to you, a good equationless introduction to all sorts of new physics, built up from the foundations of Relativity and Quantum mechanics, to start with would be "The elegant universe" by Brian Greene.
Conceptually, it is very good and its analogies are very instructive - it does not its own hide poor communication of the basic and fundamental meaning of the theories by illustrating a point with reams of mathematics (this approach has its own advantages within mathematical physics, but isn't always useful to a beginner).
And yes, It does include pictures.
Depends what frame your in.
AND...
If you're using geometric units, where C=1 (and is dimensionless), in which case
E=(mc^2)/sqrt (1-V^2)
"b) There will be less programming challenges in porting games."
.
Why should this be? The underlying structure of Mac OS X is vastly different to Windows and this will not change with Apple using x86 hardware. Also, as it is likely that few games are written in assembly (which could cause a few headaches in porting from x86 to ppc) it will be no easier to port much of the non-graphics code. Admittedly, vectorized functions (Using MMX, SSE etc) will be easier to port, but there is still the matter of the Mac OS X windowing system and Quartz as well as replacing DirectX library functions with ones from OpenGL (or perhaps CoreImage in some cases)
This is not trivial, and poses one of the largest challenges in porting a game.
But it can be done, and a profit made, take a look at Aspyr et al.
IMHO, the change in architecture will not have dramatic effects on gaming (although we should see faster graphics cards, and better optimization) apart an increased market share, which should result in more games being ported.
"He'll let it go to Dell, eventually, just wait"
And Dell will be happy to accept...
The BBC is currently running a pilot experiment in distributing TV footage via p2p.
Essentially, the system uses a custom media player (with in-built DRM) and p2p software to distribute segments of the file between users. Its architecture is very similar to Bittorent (in as much as a central seed server exists). If the pilot is successfull, it is likely that this technology could find its way into the set-top boxes of the future. This is a real possibility given that the UK telecoms network is soon to be completely overhauled.
New Scientist magazine has also run an article on this.
A man in England has some different ideas concerning the fluorescent tube.
Seems kinda dangerous - not something that you should try at home...
I'm still acclimatizing to x86, next you'll be telling me that all macs will ship with windows.
Perhaps this is naive, but I really can't help but think that it's about time to replace the shuttle. (I'll list my reasons below)
1. Each shuttle was designed to have an operational life of 10 years, all have surpassed this age.
2. The shuttle has not had an admirable safety record - It was expected that 1 in each 100 flights would be unsuccessful and end in total failure (like Columbia) however 2 in 113 have ended in failure. I'm not sure what statistical distribution this was modelled on, but surely the number of failures are significantly larger than initially postulated.
3. The shuttle has intrinsic design flaws due to the politics of the cold war - it was hoped that the shuttle could be used for launching reconnaissance satellites and consequently the shuttle had to be fitted with a much larger cargo bay and develop vastly more thrust to deliver the large (approx. 18 tonnes) payloads to polar orbits. It was also hoped by the airforce (who demanded these changes) that after a single orbit the shuttle could land (should the mission be aborted), (against the wishes of NASA who preferred a "splash down") and so the shuttle was fitted with delta shaped wings that are prone to being stuck by debris due to their large size. As a result of all of this additional weight the shuttle had to be fitted with high thrust SRB's which are completely uncontrollable (unlike cryogenic propellants used by Apollo et al).
4. The shuttle sits on the side of its fuel tanks making a detachment impractical should an abort be called at lift off.
If safety concerns were paramount, the shuttle really should have been much smaller, with little wings sitting on top of a rocket propelled by cryogenic fuels.
Confirmation that Disney is the propaganda wing of the new world order. :)
Just recently, Apple had been seeing some reasonable success in scientific/HP computing (see http://www.tcf.vt.edu/systemX.html, http://www.apple.com/science/profiles/colsa/) and seemed keen to promote small xServe clusters to scientists http://www.apple.com/science/.
It would seem that the advantages of a xServe cluster (altivec, 64-bit and good performance per watt) would be lost when Apple produces an x86 version when compared to a (inevitably) cheaper x86 Linux system. and, although this is probably quite a small market, it would be sad to see Apple loose it.
Does anyone have any opinions to how the loss of PPC will affect Apple in this area - are researchers more interested in OS than price:performance ?
Wow that G4's fast! It is if you code in altivec. How many do? Very few. Wow that Itanium's fast! It is if you code for IA-64. How many do? Very few. Hey guys, Lets build an Itanium PowerMac!
http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/0,2000 061791,39177708,00.htm
Apple's part of the establishment now.
Has anyone seen this? (quoted from theregister.co.uk) "The only 'benefit' will be that if you don't like Mac OS X, you'll be able to wipe it and install Windows on your Mac. Apple has said it won't stop users doing that, though it will prevent PC owners installing Mac OS X on their machines. For a minority, the ability to run Windows alongside Mac OS X will be advantageous, just as plenty of Linux users do the same, primarily to play the latest games." Would you be persuaded to Switch to a Mac from Windows if you could easily change back again? Given Apple's excellent and coveted product design amongst consumers this could be a wise move.