When I read the article I saw that it's one town over for me, so I started trying to figure out when I could go......Until I saw that I'm too old.
WTF? When I was a teenage I was pissed off that there were things that I couldn't get into because I wasn't old enough. Now, there are things that I can't do because I'm too old!
Something to consider is that Microsoft currently provides an, uhm, alternative to developing web applications called ClickOnce. Basically, ClickOnce allows a.Net WinForms application to be run directly off of the internet. Essentially, assuming your computer supports.Net, all you have to do is click on a hyperlink and the application runs.
Another thing to consider is that Office already has significant web intergration. Sharepoint allows documents to be stored on a web server. It behaves in a manner similar to source control.
Viiv is supposed to do what the Ars Technical article describes. Specifically:
You have a Viiv PC where you subscribe to some TV services and store home movies.
Your Viiv TV, (or Viiv-compatible set top box) automatically grants you access to the TV services and home movies.
Hopefully, if HomePlug ever works, then all you have to do is plug everything into a wall outlet and it just magically works without any configuration.
Hopefully, it all works... I just think it's going to take a few years before the system is ready for the early adopter market.
Did anyone here read TFA? You can restore a liscense by going back to the online store and re-authorizing your computer. All this article states is that Microsoft isn't keeping a database of who has rights to what.
I'm no fan of wrapping my purchased music up in DRM, but this article is pointing out that Microsoft isn't tracking liscenses from non-Microsoft stores. Why is this bad?
Vinyl can't replicate certain sounds. Try an out-of-phase bass signal across both channels, the needle would pop out of the groove
Cheapo systems with uni-woofers can't reproduce out-of-phase bass. It cancels out during the mixing process.
I mentioned this in an earlier post; the real advantage to vinyl is that it can be read by an acheologist. CDs and hard drives will take too long to reverse engineer.
In conclusion, for now I don't believe that Music benefits from more than 2 speakers. I may well be proven wrong
I take it you've never listened to a good multi-channel recording? Back in the 60s, people used to say the same thing about stereo!
I've been listening to surround for the past 6 years. The difference, in non-technical terms, is as follows: Stereo is like sitting in the back of a concert hall. Surround is like being on stage, or in the recording studio.
A more semi-technical explaination is twofold: Sometimes bass is attenuated in stereo because it'll cause distortion on cheap equipment. In surround, loud bass can go to the optional subwoofer channel. Also, surround helps prevent quieter instruments from getting drowned out.
To prove it, if you get the oppertunity, I suggest comparing the stereo and surround versions of "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" and "The Soft Bulletin" by The Flaming Lips. There are sounds on the surround mixes that are difficult to hear in stereo because they get drowned out.
An academic proof can come if you understand mixing live recordings. A common problem is that multiple microphones will pick up the same instrument. (This is a HUGE problem with mixing classical.) The slight differences in timing and phase, (from the differing delays due to the speed of sound,) will cause some notes to cancel out, and other notes to BE LOUD. Surround avoids this problem because there are less microphones mixed into each speaker.
Another way to demonstrate is if you happen to know a few people in an a-cappella (sp?) group. Stand in the middle of them while they're all harmonizing. Next, try to recreate the experience using stereo and surround. Which technology is more accurate?
As an American / Californian, trying to point the finger of blame to a single source of Global Warming is pointless. The fact is that Global Warming is a result of our lifestyle, and ulitmatly Americans / Californians will pay for it as a society.
I predict these will fail. Today, electronics that one would typically use rechargable batteries come with custom batteries and are self charging. (For example, my MP3 player, camera, and phones use a custom battery and have the charger build into the unit.) Other electronics, like remotes, last so long on a single pair of batteries that using rechargables is pointless.
Does anyone remember the rechargable ankalines that came out in the mid-90s? (I don't remember the brand name.) I used to use them in my CD player because they'd last for hours and were cheap. These don't last long, and cost too much money.
It'll be too big. I have a standalone USB-powered scanner that's 1" thick. (It's now retired because my printer came with an integrated scanner.) It was great when I was in college, because I could stick it in my backpack and take it to the library.
It sounds like you want to perform scanning in a batch job. Perhaps an off-the-shelf solution is better, even if it's slow? (You'll be asleep, at work, ect.) Do the old HP ScanJets allow for batch scanning?
I think the problem stems from the fact that modern networking needs a single run of cable for each port. This is in stark contrast to electrical and telephone wiring, where many plugs and jacks can be daisy-chained. For home electrical and telephone wiring, "good enough" is neat and easy.
We really need a home networking standard that doesn't require 30 runs of ethernet to each room. What average homeowner needs such a network? In the home of the future, we might see one or two computers* in each room, plus a few data-enabled devices.
* The computer would also be used as a phone, television, and stereo.
Something to consider: Vinyl can be read by archeologists; by looking at the groove under a microscope, they can infer that it's sound. CDs use a complex error correction algorithm that will take years to reverse engineer, and decoding an MP3 off of a hard drive will be even more difficult.
Vinyl does a decent job at carrying two channels with proper mixing, but as the format war in the 1970s over quadraphonic audio on LP demonstrated, it doesn't carry much more. Many people, including myself, find that music in surround is much more natural and real then traditional stereo. Digital, on the other hand, can discretely carry as many channels as possible. (I've heard all the arguments against surround-sound and will only offer one counter-argument. Listen to a good concert, and try to recreate the experience with traditional stereo. You can't.)
During a school project investigating ski-base wear, I learned that all material surfaces, no matter how smooth, are rough and random at some scale. This point is where vinyl, no matter how good of a manufacturing process is used, cannot hold a high frequency or soft note. I do not know if anyone has performed any research into determining where this point is on vinyl. How can vinyl record "everything between the samples" if even it has a limited resolution? Once digital audio has a sampling rate and bit density that exceeds vinyl's resolution, any double-blind test will show digital's superiority. (Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if DVD-Audio and SACD do exceed the physical limitations of most vinyl used in record manufacturing.)
The size and shape of the cutting lathe causes sounds to be clipped off, although they may conceivably be written onto a record. Even if additional sound "between the samples" makes it onto the record, it's too small to be picked up by the needle and will never make it out of the speakers.
I really think that if Linux is to ever succeed as a desktop OS, it needs to be part of a complete brand strategy. (This is what Apple did with BSD.)
For example, some company could come out with a computer called "The Penguin" that would run "Penguin OS". Penguin OS would be based on the Linux kernel, yet have a refined GUI.
Basically, the general public equates the OS with the computer; they don't see them as two seperate products.
Linux on the desktop needs to target what's known as "Early Adopters". Targetting people who's systems are out-of-date won't do any good.
There are four stages of a tech product, as follows:
Introduction: This is when a tech product is new, and its users are the first users.
Early Adopter: Technology enthusiasts start to try out the service.
Mainstream: The technology is used by Joe 6-pack.
Sustaining: The technology is being phased out. No new improvements are made.
The jump between each stage is difficult. Linux (on the desktop) hasn't been able to jump into the Early Adopter stage; there aren't enough technology enthusiasts who like it.
Maybe baby steps. KDE 4 should be fun. Maybe one of the user distros will get the *wild* idea to tie it to the system. Drop legecy support. Call me crazy, but I just don't see Windows 98 users getting cosy with VI, modprobe, hell, package management. Its like we all talk Klingon and don't understand when everyone else isn't doing it.
You're hitting the nail right on the head. The reasons you give are why "early adopters" turn away from Linux.
I tried a Napster subscription two years ago. It was great, I could listen to almost ANYTHING, instantly. The problem was that it sounded horrible. After two weeks, it gave me such a bad headache that I had to cancel it.
My cable company allows me to stream movies in high definition using their cable box. To support streaming high definition movies over IP, all they need to do is re-allocate their bandwidth.
Besides, I think we'll initially see a DVR-style service for high-bitrate media. You'll subscribe to shows, and they'll be downloaded and ready to play when you sit down. (This is how iTunes works for television series.)
If I was a movie studio executive, I would support these triple-layer discs at any cost.
From a long-term perspective, it's a rather short-sided move. The cheapest, simplest, and easiest approach is to only have one standard. This is for the following reasons:
DVDs, HD-DVDs, and BluRays use different techniques for menus, thus tripling the cost of mastering such disks, and causing inconsistant features.
The above disks will be more expensive to manufacture.
Granted, only having one inventory item per title is desirable today; and such an approach may work on high-margin titles. In the long run, for lower-margin titles, the studios will need to pick a standard and stick with it, or hope that combo players become feasable.
I can't believe I still have this. I found it in under 2 minutes. The assignment was on Hume's "Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion." We had to pick either 1, 2 and 4, or 3 and 4. The following are brief samples:
What is natural theology? In what way is the Argument from Design an example...
Discuss each of the following: negative theology, cosmological argument...
Why is the refutation of negative theology relevant...
What is the problem of evil? Why is it religously significant...
My work was 100% original. I think what happened was that I was trying to figure out where in the book some of the topics were discussed, or a contextual definition of some of the topics. The professor was able to figure out that I read so-and-so's web site, which came as a surprise! If memory serves correctly, what I think happened was that I was looking for the "right" pages to read because I wasn't able to understand the book's structure.
I no longer have the paper I created, but I think I got a C. In the long run, I got my revenge. The professor gave me an A on a paper where I critisiced his choice of curriculum for an introductory class.
But anyway, I think I chose a bad example to illustrate my point. Teaching children to paraphrase isn't promoting academic honesty. TFA describes how many cheaters use paraphrasing to hide their tracks. At what point does paraphrasing become cheating?
This won't work. For example, I almost always play legally owned or rented DVDs. The rest are burnt from my DVD burner. An RFID-aware DVD player wouldn't be able to tell if my DVD-R contained videos of my nephew or an illegally downloaded movie.
Likewise, this won't work in overseas markets where pirated DVDs are common. Enterprising pirates will just manufacture DVD players that are immune to the system.
Copying and pasteing isn't real work. You're suppose to paraphrase in your own words. (Maybe it's the secondary schools' fault for not better preparing students in regard with this matter.)
Those are dangerous words. I once had a professor knock me for paraphrasing. It's okay to paraphrase facts from an encyclopedia... But with Google, one can take paraphrasing too far.
I took an introduction to philosophy couse in the fall of 2001, and had to write a paper that was essentially a subjective interpretation of another work. (Hume, if I remember correctly.) Given that some literature tends to go over my head, I Googled various discussions on the work to get a better understanding of what was going on. No harm done, right?
I never intended to paraphease anything, but clearly the professor was able to see other ideas, that were not mine, coming through my assignment. When I got my grade, he wrote some comment that made it sound like I copied something off of the internet.
With subjective analysis of litureature, sometimes the goal of assignments is for the student to turn in completly original analysis. Googling other papers and considering their ideas, while not outright plaugerism, can violate the spirit of the assignment.
Most of my consumer electronics that generate heat use convection for cooling. (TV, reciever, DVR, refrigerator, monitor...) They are designed so that hot air can easily rise out of the machine and be replaced by cooler air.
Has anyone ever used convection to cool a computer? It doesn't make any noise, and it'll never wear out.
Slashdot Mirror
When I read the article I saw that it's one town over for me, so I started trying to figure out when I could go... ...Until I saw that I'm too old.
WTF? When I was a teenage I was pissed off that there were things that I couldn't get into because I wasn't old enough. Now, there are things that I can't do because I'm too old!
Something to consider is that Microsoft currently provides an, uhm, alternative to developing web applications called ClickOnce. Basically, ClickOnce allows a .Net WinForms application to be run directly off of the internet. Essentially, assuming your computer supports .Net, all you have to do is click on a hyperlink and the application runs.
Another thing to consider is that Office already has significant web intergration. Sharepoint allows documents to be stored on a web server. It behaves in a manner similar to source control.
In related news, aftermarket car alarm manufacturers sue car makers for including car alarms with their cars and making them harder to disable.
Didn't it ever occur to Symantec that a business model that's based around fixing problems in someone else's product isn't sustainable?
Didn't it ever occur to Adobe that, by making their product a commodity, someone might do it cheaper and better?
Viiv is supposed to do what the Ars Technical article describes. Specifically:
Hopefully, it all works... I just think it's going to take a few years before the system is ready for the early adopter market.
Did anyone here read TFA? You can restore a liscense by going back to the online store and re-authorizing your computer. All this article states is that Microsoft isn't keeping a database of who has rights to what.
I'm no fan of wrapping my purchased music up in DRM, but this article is pointing out that Microsoft isn't tracking liscenses from non-Microsoft stores. Why is this bad?
Cheapo systems with uni-woofers can't reproduce out-of-phase bass. It cancels out during the mixing process.
I mentioned this in an earlier post; the real advantage to vinyl is that it can be read by an acheologist. CDs and hard drives will take too long to reverse engineer.
I take it you've never listened to a good multi-channel recording? Back in the 60s, people used to say the same thing about stereo!
I've been listening to surround for the past 6 years. The difference, in non-technical terms, is as follows: Stereo is like sitting in the back of a concert hall. Surround is like being on stage, or in the recording studio.
A more semi-technical explaination is twofold: Sometimes bass is attenuated in stereo because it'll cause distortion on cheap equipment. In surround, loud bass can go to the optional subwoofer channel. Also, surround helps prevent quieter instruments from getting drowned out.
To prove it, if you get the oppertunity, I suggest comparing the stereo and surround versions of "Yoshimi Battles the Pink Robots" and "The Soft Bulletin" by The Flaming Lips. There are sounds on the surround mixes that are difficult to hear in stereo because they get drowned out.
An academic proof can come if you understand mixing live recordings. A common problem is that multiple microphones will pick up the same instrument. (This is a HUGE problem with mixing classical.) The slight differences in timing and phase, (from the differing delays due to the speed of sound,) will cause some notes to cancel out, and other notes to BE LOUD. Surround avoids this problem because there are less microphones mixed into each speaker.
Another way to demonstrate is if you happen to know a few people in an a-cappella (sp?) group. Stand in the middle of them while they're all harmonizing. Next, try to recreate the experience using stereo and surround. Which technology is more accurate?
Good point! I've been saying the same thing about BluRay and HD-DVD.
As an American / Californian, trying to point the finger of blame to a single source of Global Warming is pointless. The fact is that Global Warming is a result of our lifestyle, and ulitmatly Americans / Californians will pay for it as a society.
I predict these will fail. Today, electronics that one would typically use rechargable batteries come with custom batteries and are self charging. (For example, my MP3 player, camera, and phones use a custom battery and have the charger build into the unit.) Other electronics, like remotes, last so long on a single pair of batteries that using rechargables is pointless.
Does anyone remember the rechargable ankalines that came out in the mid-90s? (I don't remember the brand name.) I used to use them in my CD player because they'd last for hours and were cheap. These don't last long, and cost too much money.
It'll be too big. I have a standalone USB-powered scanner that's 1" thick. (It's now retired because my printer came with an integrated scanner.) It was great when I was in college, because I could stick it in my backpack and take it to the library.
It sounds like you want to perform scanning in a batch job. Perhaps an off-the-shelf solution is better, even if it's slow? (You'll be asleep, at work, ect.) Do the old HP ScanJets allow for batch scanning?
I think the problem stems from the fact that modern networking needs a single run of cable for each port. This is in stark contrast to electrical and telephone wiring, where many plugs and jacks can be daisy-chained. For home electrical and telephone wiring, "good enough" is neat and easy.
We really need a home networking standard that doesn't require 30 runs of ethernet to each room. What average homeowner needs such a network? In the home of the future, we might see one or two computers* in each room, plus a few data-enabled devices.
* The computer would also be used as a phone, television, and stereo.
Something to consider: Vinyl can be read by archeologists; by looking at the groove under a microscope, they can infer that it's sound. CDs use a complex error correction algorithm that will take years to reverse engineer, and decoding an MP3 off of a hard drive will be even more difficult.
For more information, I've written an extensive study of the merits and drawbacks of vinyl: http://www.andrewrondeau.com/Writings/My%20Love-Ha te%20Relationship%20With%20Vinyl%20-%20Or%20-%20Wh y%20We%20Should%20Keep%20Making%20Vinyl.html
From my article about its limits:
I really think that if Linux is to ever succeed as a desktop OS, it needs to be part of a complete brand strategy. (This is what Apple did with BSD.)
For example, some company could come out with a computer called "The Penguin" that would run "Penguin OS". Penguin OS would be based on the Linux kernel, yet have a refined GUI.
Basically, the general public equates the OS with the computer; they don't see them as two seperate products.
Linux on the desktop needs to target what's known as "Early Adopters". Targetting people who's systems are out-of-date won't do any good.
There are four stages of a tech product, as follows:
The jump between each stage is difficult. Linux (on the desktop) hasn't been able to jump into the Early Adopter stage; there aren't enough technology enthusiasts who like it.
You're hitting the nail right on the head. The reasons you give are why "early adopters" turn away from Linux.
How many people (like me) are waiting for a Core 2 Duo MacPro? Perhaps we would make up 0.03% of Mac OS's market share?
I tried a Napster subscription two years ago. It was great, I could listen to almost ANYTHING, instantly. The problem was that it sounded horrible. After two weeks, it gave me such a bad headache that I had to cancel it.
My cable company allows me to stream movies in high definition using their cable box. To support streaming high definition movies over IP, all they need to do is re-allocate their bandwidth.
Besides, I think we'll initially see a DVR-style service for high-bitrate media. You'll subscribe to shows, and they'll be downloaded and ready to play when you sit down. (This is how iTunes works for television series.)
That's not an issue. Either the studios force a format to fail, or wait until one of the format gets to about 60-70% marketshare.
After reading your post I started looking to see if there were any examples of DIY ionic fans on the internet. So far I can't find any.
I think I can infer your instructions from your post:
So, what are my chances of electrocuting myself?
From a long-term perspective, it's a rather short-sided move. The cheapest, simplest, and easiest approach is to only have one standard. This is for the following reasons:
Granted, only having one inventory item per title is desirable today; and such an approach may work on high-margin titles. In the long run, for lower-margin titles, the studios will need to pick a standard and stick with it, or hope that combo players become feasable.
I can't believe I still have this. I found it in under 2 minutes. The assignment was on Hume's "Dialogs Concerning Natural Religion." We had to pick either 1, 2 and 4, or 3 and 4. The following are brief samples:
My work was 100% original. I think what happened was that I was trying to figure out where in the book some of the topics were discussed, or a contextual definition of some of the topics. The professor was able to figure out that I read so-and-so's web site, which came as a surprise! If memory serves correctly, what I think happened was that I was looking for the "right" pages to read because I wasn't able to understand the book's structure.
I no longer have the paper I created, but I think I got a C. In the long run, I got my revenge. The professor gave me an A on a paper where I critisiced his choice of curriculum for an introductory class.
But anyway, I think I chose a bad example to illustrate my point. Teaching children to paraphrase isn't promoting academic honesty. TFA describes how many cheaters use paraphrasing to hide their tracks. At what point does paraphrasing become cheating?
This won't work. For example, I almost always play legally owned or rented DVDs. The rest are burnt from my DVD burner. An RFID-aware DVD player wouldn't be able to tell if my DVD-R contained videos of my nephew or an illegally downloaded movie.
Likewise, this won't work in overseas markets where pirated DVDs are common. Enterprising pirates will just manufacture DVD players that are immune to the system.
Those are dangerous words. I once had a professor knock me for paraphrasing. It's okay to paraphrase facts from an encyclopedia... But with Google, one can take paraphrasing too far.
I took an introduction to philosophy couse in the fall of 2001, and had to write a paper that was essentially a subjective interpretation of another work. (Hume, if I remember correctly.) Given that some literature tends to go over my head, I Googled various discussions on the work to get a better understanding of what was going on. No harm done, right?
I never intended to paraphease anything, but clearly the professor was able to see other ideas, that were not mine, coming through my assignment. When I got my grade, he wrote some comment that made it sound like I copied something off of the internet.
With subjective analysis of litureature, sometimes the goal of assignments is for the student to turn in completly original analysis. Googling other papers and considering their ideas, while not outright plaugerism, can violate the spirit of the assignment.
Most of my consumer electronics that generate heat use convection for cooling. (TV, reciever, DVR, refrigerator, monitor...) They are designed so that hot air can easily rise out of the machine and be replaced by cooler air.
Has anyone ever used convection to cool a computer? It doesn't make any noise, and it'll never wear out.