I knew my capitalism comment would bring a reply refering to the "sacrifice of Humans" or some other such dogma./. is so predictable. And as is also usually the case, the reply comes anonymously.
We have a Garmin C320 GPS in our car. Our teenagers really love it because it keeps them from getting lost, and it helps them to make curfew (it tells estimated arrival time). We (the parents) love it because it has a (not so obvious) screen that shows the maximum speed, trip length, time stopped, etc. Every once in a while I check it "just to make sure". Now, it is easy for them to a) turn it off or b) reset the max speed. The former I can't prevent. As for the latter, well, I always know what the maximum speed was (down to a tenth of an mph) so if they reset it and then it shows a lower number than it had been previously, I can tell.
So far we've only had to make an issue of this once -- when it read 111mph! Turns out it is a portable GPS and they had put it in a friend's car (a vintage Trans Am), and he had gone on a drag track with it. Now I know alot of you are thinking "you bought that line?", but I seriously doubt our 7 year old minivan with 125K miles on it could go that fast even if it wanted to. Ditto for the '97 4 cylinder beater they drive. Anyhow, it spawned a nice discussion about the dangers and risks of driving really fast.
There was one really important point at the end of the article that should not be overlooked:
Also keep in mind that AMD has yet to go to a 65nm manufacturing process.
AMD remains competitive with Intel, even though they are still at 90nm. Speed goes up and power goes down with die scaling! Now, clearly the Core2 is the fastest processor you can buy today, and Intel is (smartly) offering speed grades in the mid-price range in order to try and "buy back" the enthusiasts. But AMD will get a nice speed bump when they bring 65nm on line. Of course Intel is not standing still either, as they are aggressively moving towards 45nm.
It's called parenting. And you haven't learned that yet.
You nailed it. And of course if something horrible did happen, I suspect "dad-mode" probably means castigating local authorities, blaming anybody but their own kid, and suing everybody even tangetially involved.
Are you kidding about being from NY, or about Go Yankees, because, frankly, I don't think the Yankees need any encouragement after they busted out the whupping stick this weekend.
Have you never heard of the "windfall profits tax"? That is the "tax them into oblivion" scenario to which I was refering. It is always discussed whenever oil companies show big profits.
As far as your asertion that "we're giving the oil companies money", I presume there are subsidies for oil companies to encourage exploration (at least I see lots of chatter about such programs), but as far as I know (please enlighten me otherwise) the net revenue flows from the oil companies to the government. I would really find it hard to believe that they are a net drain on the government coffers. That simply runs anathema to everything I have observed my entire life about governments... which is that they grow and grow and grow until they consume such a large percentage of a country's resources that a revolution occurs. This is, of course, because unlike companies, they have no natural predator.
and the costs for ten or hundreds of thousands of site-licensed machines is enourmous
Aren't these sunk costs? Aren't these hundreds of thousands of machines already licensed?
Plus, as a MASS resident who has seen the state screw up almost everything it touches (see collapsing tunnel system link in the OP), I am not looking forward to MA doing a huge rollout of this new infrastucture. History tells me it will a) suck and b) cost me a lot of money. Now I'm not saying migrating to OSS/ODF is a bad idea; I just don't think state governments (and especially MY state government) should be the trailblazer. That thundering hoard you see is droves of people leaving MA (the only state in the union to suffer a decrease in population in the last two censuses) because of things like the Big Dig, and other callosally mismanaged debacles riddled with patronage, schedule slips, and massive budget overruns at the taxpayer's expense.
I also can't seem to shake the suspicion that this is mostly politically motivated. Recall that MA was the last state to withdraw from the MS monopoly penalty phase. That stubborness also ended up costing taxpayers millions, with nothing to show for it. Why do I think (as a lifelong MA resident) this is really more about revenge than it is about making things better?
I think you missed my point - I know "static" product insertion is already being done. In fact I cited that fact, and my baseball example was just one instance. My point was about "dynamic" insertion at the endpoint (like in a cable box or DVR). I am pretty certain nobody is doing that yet. It wouldn't surprise me if there are multiple versions of a Seinfeld episode, one with Coke, one with Pepsi. It wouldn't even shock me if different versions were shown in geographically targetted areas. However, dynamic insertion is really a completely different phenomenon - technically much more challenging, and, I think, the wave of the future. With dynamic insertion, you and your neighbor might see different products inserted into the same movie you were watching at the same time.
Imagine watching Seinfeld and Jerry pulls a Coke from his refrigerator. Only, in some households he might be seen pulling a Pepsi. Developing the technology to dynamically insert products into the programming is the next logical step in advertising. We see it already, statically, with companies paying gobs of money for product insertion. Imagine instead shooting movies and programming with "generic" green-board like products, and then replacing them with images of the desired product, on a case-by-case basis. You already see some of this in baseball games. There is an ad billboard behind home plate in Fenway park. Nominally it is "green", but it gets replaced in the video stream (at the broadcaster end) with ads. It's not a huge step to move this insertion down to the DVR/cable box. This is where companies like TIVO have the inside track. Their boxes could do the insertion, under command from 'central control'. And they already know our viewing habits (not just what we watch, but when we watch it, and for how long), and our "clicking" habits.
You started your post (and titled it) claiming "most of it is Microsoft". You ended it with "God I hate Microsoft". And yet the entire content had nothing to do with Microsoft? And I am the one needing remedial English lessons? Put away your irrational biases and learn to write a coherent, persuasive post, with examples and facts that support your thesis.
In the case of agents, recording companies, etc., they take on (and spend money on) vastly more artists that get nowhere than they do those that ever develop a large enough fan base to make in the investment worth it.
It's interesting... this reminds me of the big pharma industry which spends billions developing drugs, hoping for the occasional blockbuster. Or the oil companies, that spend billions drilling, hoping for the one big oil field. Coincidentally, big pharma and big oil may be the only industries more reviled than the labels. (well, excluding Microsoft of course, but that is a special religious thing mostly). So what is it that makes people resent (revile) companies that successfully "prospect"? Near as I can tell, it's jealousy and envy. These companies "strike it rich", which means they just "got lucky". Why can't we be lucky like that? We hate them!
I know, let's pass laws to regulate and tax them into oblivious!... [5 years later]... Hey, how come oil is so expensive? How come there aren't any new medicines?
Well this thread is the perfect venue to relate one of my favorite "voodoo" stories.
Years ago my computer started developing this wierd problem. First thing in the morning I would get myself a coffee and sit down to sift through my email (Outlook). Randomly, while reading an email, the message window would close, leaving me staring at the list of messages again. If I double-clicked the message it would re-open and I could continue reading. These mysterious disappearing message boxes would happen once or twice a week, but only early in the morning. I tolerated it for months... then one time when it happened I realized what was going on. Turns out I had a keyboard on one of those sliding keyboard trays. I put my coffee mug on the desk, up above the keyboard. Occassionally when I would lean forward to pick up my coffee (which I usually did after bringing up a message box), my stomach would nudge the keyboard tray forward. Now, if you look on your keyboard you will see the ESC key in the upper left corner. Well, as the keyboard moved ever so slightly forward, the desktop (above the keyboard tray) would lightly press against the ESC key, closing the window. And of course as soon as I picked up my coffee mug I would lean back in my chair, which released the ESC key (so I didn't hear the tell-tale beeps of a key being held down). Well, the obvious solution to this problem was to give up coffee;-)
The large majority of "computer voodoo" is because of Microsoft's buggy crapware...
Hmmm, the large majority of your examples were non-Microsoft hardware problems... odd, that.
After 6 months of working without any problem, my always-on Linux system starts crashing every day for 3 days
So this would be Microsoft's Linux distro?
I had a Charter cable modem which would work whenever the tech guys were here... but would fail miserably just moments after they'd step out the door
I didn't know Miscrosoft bought Charter? Did you mean it was a Microsoft cable modem?
I've seen a few network cables, which test-out just fine, and work most of the time, but after the machine has been online for a while, it will fail
Last time I checked MS did not manufacture network cables...
Then there are the occasional network cables with crosstalk, which can be hard to diagnose...
Ditto.
It was pretty obvious when I saw the sheer ammount of lint in his system fans.
Ahhh.. so maybe Microsoft forgot to run "lint" on their code? [sorry, bad nerd pun]
Another Windows one is IE's download dialog... It takes so long before it appears
Finally a real MS "problem", except as others have pointed out by other responders to your rant, it's not really a problem - the download is happening in the background (which is a good thing).
but the biggest threat to security isn't the architechture or the OS
You are correct, but don't expect aknowledgement in these parts - heck, you are lucky you weren't modded troll or flamebait. Now, you never said OS security or architecture was not a factor, only that it isn't the biggest factor. I agree with you. I think the main reasons Windows is such a target are the following:
1. the sheer number of Windows boxes [providing monetary motivation as you pointed out]
2. operated by non-technical people [this dramatically amplifies the danger]
3. with a huge range of 3rd party hardware, drivers and applications [another amplifying factor]
4. hate [this gets at another kind of motivation]
The *nix crowd is always quick to point out how servers are the higher value target, and *nix has significant marketshare in that area, so why aren't there lots of *nix exploits from those juicy targets? Answer: see #2 above - servers are almost always professionally cared for and that matters a great deal. Note, compare the number of successful Windows server exploits (not "known" exploits... successful exploitations) and it is a small percentage of the installed Windows servers, as compared with the percentage of successful exploitations on Windows desktops.
I believe that #4 above is also significant factor that should not be underestimated: hate. Heck, you only have to hang out in these forums for a day or so to witness the vitriolic hate Microsoft inspires in people. There are many, many hackers who *hate* Microsoft and will go out of their way to harm them. This group is not motivated by money. Rather, they see themselves as soldiers in a religious war.
In my web-search to better understand what the heck HQ is, if it isn't some sort of stealthy copy protection scheme, I came across an interesting site (US dept of Labor: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpivcrp.htm). The following tidbit was embedded within their report:
"There seems to be no discernible difference between VHS and VHS-HQ. Manufacturer reporting of this information was inconsistent, and it became clear that consumers would have difficulty in discerning if the units they were purchasing were equipped with HQ."
Hmmm, so there was no discernible difference between HQ and non-HQ... mfg's reporting was inconsistent... Maybe that's because it wasn't about improved video quality. Maybe it really was a way to get the MPIA off their backs by giving them a "feature" that could be exploited to copy protect tapes. Wrap some sneaky marketing around it (High Quality - improved video, sharper picture) and voila, problem solved. It's probably no surprise each manufacturer's claims were inconsistent...
I would still love to see a technical description of what HQ is, beyond "spec tightening".
From what I have been able to read (there is remarkably little information on the web about this), HQ is "VHS HQ is actually a series of specification-tightenings". I found this single sentence description of HQ on 2 different sites... the only other references I see to HQ say simply "improved video quality", or some such vagueness. Can anybody point me to a spec of what HQ was? I can easily see how "specification-tightening" would lead to increased susceptibility to "noise" on the retrace signal. I am still not convinced that HQ is unrelated to copy protection. Odd that nobody talks about this or shares any technical details --- all descriptions are vague, single sentence type explanations.
For what it's worth, I have a very old VCR without HQ and it seems immune to copy protection. What a coincidence all of this is.
if the mysterious "HQ" technology that suddenly started appearing on all the VCRs had anything to do with Macrovision or copy protection? I have always suspected this, as, by my recollection, HQ appeared around the time this copy protection arrived. All that whining about putting a special "tax" on blank tapes went away around the same time as well. It all makes me wonder if the "HQ" (that allegedly gave you a "20% better picture") wasn't actually the enabler for copy protection. This could help explain why TVs didn't have a problem with copy protected content, but VCRs did. I thought maybe someone in/. land might have some first hand knowledge about HQ and could shed some light on this.
OK, this is going back a ways, but as a gray-beard I oftentimes find myself telling people about this. The KIM-1 was a single-board computer, 1MHz 6502-based, with 1 kilobyte of RAM (yes, that is not a misprint). It had a hex keypad and a 6 digit 7-segment display. I purchased (via an ad in Byte Magazine) a program called Microchess. It came in hardcopy form, basically the assembly source and associated hex code. I keyed the ~900 bytes into the KIM and then it played a decent game of chess. Yes, 900 bytes! It had 3 levels of play - 3,10,100 seconds per move. It used self-modifying code, so you had to re-enter it after each game. Remember, the computer only had 1KB of RAM in total, so that had to hold both the program and all its data. I can't even imagine writing a program in 1KB that could remember the chess board position and determine if a move was legal... nevermind implementing a decent chess strategy. Truly remarkable.
I would think this might spur a switch to trains for business types, who could then get some work done while traveling. When you factor in the airport wait times, "short hops" like DC-Boston, DC-NY might even be quicker by train. Now if the railroads were *smart* they would provide free internet connectivity on the trains (maybe they already do?).
If the PC was as tightly controlled as Apple's platform was... You probably would not ever have heard of Microsoft.
Microsoft didn't make the PC, IBM did. They were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, to ride the wave of "openness",...
Ummm, no. The reason we have all heard of Microsoft is because Gates wisely insisted that IBM *not* have an exclusive on PC-DOS. Microsoft reserved the right to sell their OS to other computer manufacturers. IBM agreed, probably due to arrogance, possibly due to cluelessness. If IBM had refused, some company like Phoenix (who cloned the BIOS) would probably have come up with a clone for PC-DOS, and we would now all be using THAT company's name in vain, instead of Microsoft's. You can criticize Gates for lots of things, but this was a very shrewd move on his part, insisting (while negotiating with a 600 pound gorilla) that he keep distibution rights to DOS. And that shrewdness has paid off handsomely for him.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the whole PC market as Bill Gates and perhaps Steve Jobs step aside. Which company better able to continue/thrive without the guy who's name is practically synonymous with the company? Apple had a pretty rough go of it when Jobs left the first time. We have no data to predict how Microsoft will react when Gates is no longer involved. Of course Sun is now McNealy-less, but it's probably too soon to tell what affect that is having. The other guy who keeps coming to mind is Larry Ellison at Oracle. There was an article in Forbes awhile back that was talking about the fact that there is no replacement for Larry being groomed.
We complain alot around these boards about "faceless corporations", which is ironic given that, at least today, we *have* a face we readily associate with each of these companies. A few years from now they may all truly be faceless.
Slashdot Mirror
I knew my capitalism comment would bring a reply refering to the "sacrifice of Humans" or some other such dogma. /. is so predictable. And as is also usually the case, the reply comes anonymously.
We have a Garmin C320 GPS in our car. Our teenagers really love it because it keeps them from getting lost, and it helps them to make curfew (it tells estimated arrival time). We (the parents) love it because it has a (not so obvious) screen that shows the maximum speed, trip length, time stopped, etc. Every once in a while I check it "just to make sure". Now, it is easy for them to a) turn it off or b) reset the max speed. The former I can't prevent. As for the latter, well, I always know what the maximum speed was (down to a tenth of an mph) so if they reset it and then it shows a lower number than it had been previously, I can tell.
So far we've only had to make an issue of this once -- when it read 111mph! Turns out it is a portable GPS and they had put it in a friend's car (a vintage Trans Am), and he had gone on a drag track with it. Now I know alot of you are thinking "you bought that line?", but I seriously doubt our 7 year old minivan with 125K miles on it could go that fast even if it wanted to. Ditto for the '97 4 cylinder beater they drive. Anyhow, it spawned a nice discussion about the dangers and risks of driving really fast.
There was one really important point at the end of the article that should not be overlooked:
Also keep in mind that AMD has yet to go to a 65nm manufacturing process.
AMD remains competitive with Intel, even though they are still at 90nm. Speed goes up and power goes down with die scaling! Now, clearly the Core2 is the fastest processor you can buy today, and Intel is (smartly) offering speed grades in the mid-price range in order to try and "buy back" the enthusiasts. But AMD will get a nice speed bump when they bring 65nm on line. Of course Intel is not standing still either, as they are aggressively moving towards 45nm.
I love capitalism.
It's called parenting. And you haven't learned that yet.
You nailed it. And of course if something horrible did happen, I suspect "dad-mode" probably means castigating local authorities, blaming anybody but their own kid, and suing everybody even tangetially involved.
Are you kidding about being from NY, or about Go Yankees, because, frankly, I don't think the Yankees need any encouragement after they busted out the whupping stick this weekend.
Have you never heard of the "windfall profits tax"? That is the "tax them into oblivion" scenario to which I was refering. It is always discussed whenever oil companies show big profits.
... which is that they grow and grow and grow until they consume such a large percentage of a country's resources that a revolution occurs. This is, of course, because unlike companies, they have no natural predator.
As far as your asertion that "we're giving the oil companies money", I presume there are subsidies for oil companies to encourage exploration (at least I see lots of chatter about such programs), but as far as I know (please enlighten me otherwise) the net revenue flows from the oil companies to the government. I would really find it hard to believe that they are a net drain on the government coffers. That simply runs anathema to everything I have observed my entire life about governments
and the costs for ten or hundreds of thousands of site-licensed machines is enourmous
Aren't these sunk costs? Aren't these hundreds of thousands of machines already licensed?
Plus, as a MASS resident who has seen the state screw up almost everything it touches (see collapsing tunnel system link in the OP), I am not looking forward to MA doing a huge rollout of this new infrastucture. History tells me it will a) suck and b) cost me a lot of money. Now I'm not saying migrating to OSS/ODF is a bad idea; I just don't think state governments (and especially MY state government) should be the trailblazer. That thundering hoard you see is droves of people leaving MA (the only state in the union to suffer a decrease in population in the last two censuses) because of things like the Big Dig, and other callosally mismanaged debacles riddled with patronage, schedule slips, and massive budget overruns at the taxpayer's expense.
I also can't seem to shake the suspicion that this is mostly politically motivated. Recall that MA was the last state to withdraw from the MS monopoly penalty phase. That stubborness also ended up costing taxpayers millions, with nothing to show for it. Why do I think (as a lifelong MA resident) this is really more about revenge than it is about making things better?
I use it for things that are better off gone forever than being leaked.
You mean like the details of your encryption/splitting/hiding algorithm?
I think you missed my point - I know "static" product insertion is already being done. In fact I cited that fact, and my baseball example was just one instance. My point was about "dynamic" insertion at the endpoint (like in a cable box or DVR). I am pretty certain nobody is doing that yet. It wouldn't surprise me if there are multiple versions of a Seinfeld episode, one with Coke, one with Pepsi. It wouldn't even shock me if different versions were shown in geographically targetted areas. However, dynamic insertion is really a completely different phenomenon - technically much more challenging, and, I think, the wave of the future. With dynamic insertion, you and your neighbor might see different products inserted into the same movie you were watching at the same time.
Imagine watching Seinfeld and Jerry pulls a Coke from his refrigerator. Only, in some households he might be seen pulling a Pepsi. Developing the technology to dynamically insert products into the programming is the next logical step in advertising. We see it already, statically, with companies paying gobs of money for product insertion. Imagine instead shooting movies and programming with "generic" green-board like products, and then replacing them with images of the desired product, on a case-by-case basis. You already see some of this in baseball games. There is an ad billboard behind home plate in Fenway park. Nominally it is "green", but it gets replaced in the video stream (at the broadcaster end) with ads. It's not a huge step to move this insertion down to the DVR/cable box. This is where companies like TIVO have the inside track. Their boxes could do the insertion, under command from 'central control'. And they already know our viewing habits (not just what we watch, but when we watch it, and for how long), and our "clicking" habits.
You started your post (and titled it) claiming "most of it is Microsoft". You ended it with "God I hate Microsoft". And yet the entire content had nothing to do with Microsoft? And I am the one needing remedial English lessons? Put away your irrational biases and learn to write a coherent, persuasive post, with examples and facts that support your thesis.
God I hate people with cluttered minds.
In the case of agents, recording companies, etc., they take on (and spend money on) vastly more artists that get nowhere than they do those that ever develop a large enough fan base to make in the investment worth it.
... this reminds me of the big pharma industry which spends billions developing drugs, hoping for the occasional blockbuster. Or the oil companies, that spend billions drilling, hoping for the one big oil field. Coincidentally, big pharma and big oil may be the only industries more reviled than the labels. (well, excluding Microsoft of course, but that is a special religious thing mostly). So what is it that makes people resent (revile) companies that successfully "prospect"? Near as I can tell, it's jealousy and envy. These companies "strike it rich", which means they just "got lucky". Why can't we be lucky like that? We hate them!
... [5 years later] ... Hey, how come oil is so expensive? How come there aren't any new medicines?
It's interesting
I know, let's pass laws to regulate and tax them into oblivious!
Well this thread is the perfect venue to relate one of my favorite "voodoo" stories.
... then one time when it happened I realized what was going on. Turns out I had a keyboard on one of those sliding keyboard trays. I put my coffee mug on the desk, up above the keyboard. Occassionally when I would lean forward to pick up my coffee (which I usually did after bringing up a message box), my stomach would nudge the keyboard tray forward. Now, if you look on your keyboard you will see the ESC key in the upper left corner. Well, as the keyboard moved ever so slightly forward, the desktop (above the keyboard tray) would lightly press against the ESC key, closing the window. And of course as soon as I picked up my coffee mug I would lean back in my chair, which released the ESC key (so I didn't hear the tell-tale beeps of a key being held down). Well, the obvious solution to this problem was to give up coffee ;-)
Years ago my computer started developing this wierd problem. First thing in the morning I would get myself a coffee and sit down to sift through my email (Outlook). Randomly, while reading an email, the message window would close, leaving me staring at the list of messages again. If I double-clicked the message it would re-open and I could continue reading. These mysterious disappearing message boxes would happen once or twice a week, but only early in the morning. I tolerated it for months
The large majority of "computer voodoo" is because of Microsoft's buggy crapware...
... odd, that.
... but would fail miserably just moments after they'd step out the door
...
...
.. so maybe Microsoft forgot to run "lint" on their code? [sorry, bad nerd pun]
;-)
Hmmm, the large majority of your examples were non-Microsoft hardware problems
After 6 months of working without any problem, my always-on Linux system starts crashing every day for 3 days
So this would be Microsoft's Linux distro?
I had a Charter cable modem which would work whenever the tech guys were here
I didn't know Miscrosoft bought Charter? Did you mean it was a Microsoft cable modem?
I've seen a few network cables, which test-out just fine, and work most of the time, but after the machine has been online for a while, it will fail
Last time I checked MS did not manufacture network cables
Then there are the occasional network cables with crosstalk, which can be hard to diagnose
Ditto.
It was pretty obvious when I saw the sheer ammount of lint in his system fans.
Ahhh
Another Windows one is IE's download dialog... It takes so long before it appears
Finally a real MS "problem", except as others have pointed out by other responders to your rant, it's not really a problem - the download is happening in the background (which is a good thing).
God I hate religious wars.
but the biggest threat to security isn't the architechture or the OS
... successful exploitations) and it is a small percentage of the installed Windows servers, as compared with the percentage of successful exploitations on Windows desktops.
You are correct, but don't expect aknowledgement in these parts - heck, you are lucky you weren't modded troll or flamebait. Now, you never said OS security or architecture was not a factor, only that it isn't the biggest factor. I agree with you. I think the main reasons Windows is such a target are the following:
1. the sheer number of Windows boxes [providing monetary motivation as you pointed out]
2. operated by non-technical people [this dramatically amplifies the danger]
3. with a huge range of 3rd party hardware, drivers and applications [another amplifying factor]
4. hate [this gets at another kind of motivation]
The *nix crowd is always quick to point out how servers are the higher value target, and *nix has significant marketshare in that area, so why aren't there lots of *nix exploits from those juicy targets? Answer: see #2 above - servers are almost always professionally cared for and that matters a great deal. Note, compare the number of successful Windows server exploits (not "known" exploits
I believe that #4 above is also significant factor that should not be underestimated: hate. Heck, you only have to hang out in these forums for a day or so to witness the vitriolic hate Microsoft inspires in people. There are many, many hackers who *hate* Microsoft and will go out of their way to harm them. This group is not motivated by money. Rather, they see themselves as soldiers in a religious war.
In my web-search to better understand what the heck HQ is, if it isn't some sort of stealthy copy protection scheme, I came across an interesting site (US dept of Labor: http://www.bls.gov/cpi/cpivcrp.htm). The following tidbit was embedded within their report:
... mfg's reporting was inconsistent ... Maybe that's because it wasn't about improved video quality. Maybe it really was a way to get the MPIA off their backs by giving them a "feature" that could be exploited to copy protect tapes. Wrap some sneaky marketing around it (High Quality - improved video, sharper picture) and voila, problem solved. It's probably no surprise each manufacturer's claims were inconsistent ...
"There seems to be no discernible difference between VHS and VHS-HQ. Manufacturer reporting of this information was inconsistent, and it became clear that consumers would have difficulty in discerning if the units they were purchasing were equipped with HQ."
Hmmm, so there was no discernible difference between HQ and non-HQ
I would still love to see a technical description of what HQ is, beyond "spec tightening".
From what I have been able to read (there is remarkably little information on the web about this), HQ is "VHS HQ is actually a series of specification-tightenings". I found this single sentence description of HQ on 2 different sites ... the only other references I see to HQ say simply "improved video quality", or some such vagueness. Can anybody point me to a spec of what HQ was? I can easily see how "specification-tightening" would lead to increased susceptibility to "noise" on the retrace signal. I am still not convinced that HQ is unrelated to copy protection. Odd that nobody talks about this or shares any technical details --- all descriptions are vague, single sentence type explanations.
For what it's worth, I have a very old VCR without HQ and it seems immune to copy protection. What a coincidence all of this is.
And did HQ perhaps include autogain? What was HQ?
if the mysterious "HQ" technology that suddenly started appearing on all the VCRs had anything to do with Macrovision or copy protection? I have always suspected this, as, by my recollection, HQ appeared around the time this copy protection arrived. All that whining about putting a special "tax" on blank tapes went away around the same time as well. It all makes me wonder if the "HQ" (that allegedly gave you a "20% better picture") wasn't actually the enabler for copy protection. This could help explain why TVs didn't have a problem with copy protected content, but VCRs did. I thought maybe someone in /. land might have some first hand knowledge about HQ and could shed some light on this.
OK, this is going back a ways, but as a gray-beard I oftentimes find myself telling people about this. The KIM-1 was a single-board computer, 1MHz 6502-based, with 1 kilobyte of RAM (yes, that is not a misprint). It had a hex keypad and a 6 digit 7-segment display. I purchased (via an ad in Byte Magazine) a program called Microchess. It came in hardcopy form, basically the assembly source and associated hex code. I keyed the ~900 bytes into the KIM and then it played a decent game of chess. Yes, 900 bytes! It had 3 levels of play - 3,10,100 seconds per move. It used self-modifying code, so you had to re-enter it after each game. Remember, the computer only had 1KB of RAM in total, so that had to hold both the program and all its data. I can't even imagine writing a program in 1KB that could remember the chess board position and determine if a move was legal ... nevermind implementing a decent chess strategy. Truly remarkable.
I would think this might spur a switch to trains for business types, who could then get some work done while traveling. When you factor in the airport wait times, "short hops" like DC-Boston, DC-NY might even be quicker by train. Now if the railroads were *smart* they would provide free internet connectivity on the trains (maybe they already do?).
You were doing great until these two points, which are decidedly leftwing rants. You seem to mixing up your stereotypes.
If the PC was as tightly controlled as Apple's platform was... You probably would not ever have heard of Microsoft.
...
Microsoft didn't make the PC, IBM did. They were just lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, to ride the wave of "openness",
Ummm, no. The reason we have all heard of Microsoft is because Gates wisely insisted that IBM *not* have an exclusive on PC-DOS. Microsoft reserved the right to sell their OS to other computer manufacturers. IBM agreed, probably due to arrogance, possibly due to cluelessness. If IBM had refused, some company like Phoenix (who cloned the BIOS) would probably have come up with a clone for PC-DOS, and we would now all be using THAT company's name in vain, instead of Microsoft's. You can criticize Gates for lots of things, but this was a very shrewd move on his part, insisting (while negotiating with a 600 pound gorilla) that he keep distibution rights to DOS. And that shrewdness has paid off handsomely for him.
It will be interesting to see what happens in the whole PC market as Bill Gates and perhaps Steve Jobs step aside. Which company better able to continue/thrive without the guy who's name is practically synonymous with the company? Apple had a pretty rough go of it when Jobs left the first time. We have no data to predict how Microsoft will react when Gates is no longer involved. Of course Sun is now McNealy-less, but it's probably too soon to tell what affect that is having. The other guy who keeps coming to mind is Larry Ellison at Oracle. There was an article in Forbes awhile back that was talking about the fact that there is no replacement for Larry being groomed.
We complain alot around these boards about "faceless corporations", which is ironic given that, at least today, we *have* a face we readily associate with each of these companies. A few years from now they may all truly be faceless.
Why do we care what horse-breeders think? I mean since when have they been the technical thought-leaders?