I googled hdmi/composite adapters, and found a couple for 10-20$. However, further research suggest these are either extremely limited, or even outright scams.
Its conceivable that a relatively inexpensive hdmi-composite converter that will take a 480i digital signal and convert it to composite could exist. (But this requires that you are able to set your hdmi source to 480i output.) But even this would likely be more than $10.
But an hdmi-composite adapter that can handle scaling/processing 480p/720p/1080i/1080p images down to 480i is what the expensive units do.
In a nutshell, I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know.
What's funnier is, my real name has thousands of users (people using the name as their own). They were probably issued at birth, not as an attempt of identity theft. I'm very proud of my name, we are a diverse and well respected crowd.
Lol, of course. But your missing my point I think. Its not so much that there are other people on fb that have your name, its that someone could impersonate you on fb whether you had an account or not. It would not be particularly difficult for someone that knew you to create a profile, use your real address and so forth, upload your real picture, join some groups, friend some people, post real stuff about your life (previous / current job, hobbies, etc, and then post a ton of juvenile asinine crap, and result in you not getting a job because someone who looked you up found this alternative "you". And they'd know it was you because the picture matched the guy they interviewed, and they noticed amongst the ranting and ravings that they mentioned working at the place mentioned in your resume, and so on.
If you aren't on facebook, you have no defense against this. But joining facebook doesn't actually help you all that much either, especially if you aren't all that active. That was my point. You seemed to suggest that by joining fb you'd at least control "your own identity", but even that isn't necessarily true.
In all seriousness, I've been told that when looking for a house you want to find one that was built during a recession. In theory, people were able to chose better contractors during hard times, whereas boom-time houses are more likely to be slapped together quickly to make a buck.
I don't think that is a reliable indicator. Its true boom-time houses are often built as quickly as possible to get on to the next project; its true some developers cut corners get cut to save time.
But recession housing has a counter-indicator as well... the contractors are often on hard times themselves, and cut corners to bring costs down. I live in a multi home development, that was started during the boom, and was finished as the recession hit hard. There is a noticeable degradation in the quality as you move from the homes that were done first to the ones that were done last. Little details, for example: my unit, an early unit, can turn the lights at the bottom of the stairs using a switch at the top or at the bottom. Later units, only have the one switch at the bottom.
Even worse are projects where developers/contractors were bankrupted during construction. The last thing you want is a home that was half built, then went into limbo for 5 months with some plastic sheets keeping the weather out, and then finished up by another contractor/developer as inexpensively as possible so that they might still turn a profit on them.
Ultimately I think good and bad homes can be built in any economic climate. But a good reputable developer working in a healthy or better economy probably is probably the safest bet. A crappy developer is going to do crappy work in any economy, but even good developers will cut corners if they fall on hard times.
All you've demonstrated is that it doesn't matter if you create an account or not. Even if I had a facebook account, you could still create one on my behalf, stick my picture on it, friend people, post comments. The fact I'd have a 'real' account that I don't use much doesn't prevent you from doing any of this...
If I bought the GoogleTV or AppleTV for my nearly 80-year-old parents would it (1) be able to connect to their old composite-only set? What about S-video?
Buy an HDMI to composite adapter for $10.00.
2) How easy would it be for them to use? Right now they barely comprehend how to change channels on the Digital-to-analog Converter box ("How do I get this damn TV Guide off the screen???"), so I'm a bit skeptical they could operate either of the internet-based boxes.
If they can manage an iPod they can probably manage AppleTV. If not, then don't buy them one.
(3) Does it work over a 1000 kbit/s line? Or would they need to download first and watch later?
80 years old, can't figure out how to operate a cable box, but they have gigabit internet access...? Let me guess, and a gentoo media server connected to an openfiler box with iSCSI drives?
I assume they operate this through a remote control with one button on it that simply sends a jolt of electricity through your genitals to alert you to come running?;)
I have a 24" 1920x1200 panel... but those are few and far between and some are not so good for gaming or fast movement of black text on white.
I do to too 24" 1920x1200 is pretty much the minimum size I'd buy. I also sprung for an S-IPS model. HP LP2475w -- its not new anymore, well over a year old... and cost more than other options, but it is good for video, for gaming, has great viewing angles and colour, matte finish, and tons of input options. (hdmi, displayport, dvi, vga, even composite...)
I still have my previous monitor attached as a 2ndary, a 1280x1024 P-MVA 19" Viewsonic VP930b -- another monitor that was rated extremely well in all categories for its day, but the HP is noticably better. One of my criteria when upgrading from it was to increase vertical resoution. I'm not sure what I'd buy if I were buying today, but I've noticed that like anything -- good stuff is out there, but the store shelves are stuffed with cheap gimmicky crap.
I'd love to get an even taller moniter... a 2560x1600 30" S-IPS would be heaven, but for the price you could buy half a dozen cheaper screeens.
Do you mean eyeglasses? Or we also have have a particular style called pince-nez, which is french for "pinch nose". http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pince-nez
The only thing you can know for sure (more or less), is the traffic statistics on *your* site, which, to the developer, should be pretty much the only ones that matter. Pro tip: explain that last sentence to your clients.
Step 1: Design a site that only works with IE Step 2: Monitor traffic and notice that the stats for Firefox or Safari are way down. Step 3: Advise management that there is no need to develop for alternative browsers based on the traffic to your site.
Let me refer you to the second sentence of the summary:
"The biggest change is leveraging Google's SSL search option to provide an anonymizing service which doesn't require you to trust either Google or GoogleSharing."
Wow.
You are right. That says I don't have trust google or googlesharing.... assuming I trust the entity that makes that claim.
Oh. The entity making the claim that I don't need to trust GoogleSharing is GoogleSharing. Neat.
So if I don't trust googlesharing, why would my distrust be satisfied by the fact that they claim I don't need to trust them? That makes about as much sense as a fly asking the spider if he can take a nap on the web... the spider said he wasn't hungry... I guess there's nothing to worry about.:facepalm
Now, if you had instead referred me to the googlesharing FAQ:
"If you're still worried, remember that the GoogleSharing addon and proxy code is publicly available. So it's possible for you to run a GoogleSharing proxy yourself, or to find someone who you do trust."
That's at least a step in the right direction. I can inspect and run the software on a server I do trust.*
And if I use the GoogleSharing servers, than I do still need to trust GoogleSharing to be running the software they claim to be running. I expect they are worthy of that trust but you still have to trust them unless you are running your own server after inspecting the source.*
** And you will need to find a bunch of people who trust YOU using your server for you to derive any privacy benefit from running your own server. Bit of a catch-22 there.
I think that most of the people who are qualified to setup and maintain their own router are also qualified enough to determine exactly which of their machines are infected
1) You go to best buy and plug $59 for a 4 port router box. 2) You take it home and plug it into the wall. 3) You plug the WAN port on the router to the cable or dsl box. - this is the hardest part to get right 4) You plug your computers into the other ports and start accessing the internet
People qualified to do the above are not qualified to determine which of their machines are infected.
After having read the silmarillion, that's precisely why I liked Tolkien's elves. They weren't protypical 'good'; they were generally good but they committed their share of atrocities...
Of course not. I personally think World of Warcraft sucks monkey balls as a game. (I realize millions of people apparently think otherwise, and I'm happy for them.)
I enjoyed DiabloII and Starcraft enough, but didn't care to play either through battle.net or whatever its called now. And Starcraft II... meh... I'll wait until the expansions are out and maybe buy the box set then.
In other words everyone is doing what they should do. The powerful party is doing all it can to oppress the weaker party. The weaker party is doing all it can to escape the thumb of oppression.
You're right, The Sims hasn't been any kind of success, and there isn't any large following of that series either because of it. Nobody likes that shit! Other games that simulate "real life" activities fail just as horribly- Nobody plays, say, Madden, or Skate, because you can play football or go skateboarding in real life!...We done here?
But it not because they are 'just like real life'. That's a catastrophically stupid reason to implement a game mechanic. If mimicing real life makes it fun, then do it, otherwise do something else. The Sims is nothing like real life, although it carefully mimics parts of it. It even mimics things that aren't fun, because the mimicry itself is still humourous.
You'll note with the sims in particular you play some sort of god-voyeur construct. Is that anything like real-life? Hell no, but its the only way it would be entertaining and fun. Can you imagine playing the sims being forced to actually personally act out one of their banal little lives? Think that would sell well...?
Just curious, is there ever a time in real life where you can either choose to buy a hat or just walk around until said hat appears out of the aether for free?
You realize that your just further arguing my point right?
If I wanted to make real world spending decisions about new hats I'd go to the mall. I even get a real hat. I don't need to buy a game for the privilege of experiencing spending money 'just like real life' on things that don't even exist or belong to me after 'buying' them.
Further, if just like real life was a good reason to implement something than team fortress 2 would have you lose a limb in the first firefight and then spend six to 12 months teaching your avatar to walk with a prosthetic and try to build a new life far away from combat.
Games are about providing enjoyment and entertainment. If you want to argue that spending real money on in game hats is somehow more fun than other methods of getting in game hats then feel free to make that case. But falling back on 'its just like real life' is completely specious.
Slashdot Mirror
"I need help. I need you to get the doctor. I got some bad pain in my chest, I need my pills."
Priceless. :p
Smartass. :( It was justified when I thought you'd asserted they had gigabit internet.
With 1mbit internet, it was misplaced smartassery, thanks for pointing it out. (but who writes 1000kbit anyway?)
Doh. My bad. Thanks. :)
Granted its my fault my math was off, but still it seems counter productive to write 1000kbit instead of 1mbit.
I googled hdmi/composite adapters, and found a couple for 10-20$. However, further research suggest these are either extremely limited, or even outright scams.
Its conceivable that a relatively inexpensive hdmi-composite converter that will take a 480i digital signal and convert it to composite could exist. (But this requires that you are able to set your hdmi source to 480i output.) But even this would likely be more than $10.
But an hdmi-composite adapter that can handle scaling/processing 480p/720p/1080i/1080p images down to 480i is what the expensive units do.
In a nutshell, I was wrong. Thanks for letting me know.
What's funnier is, my real name has thousands of users (people using the name as their own). They were probably issued at birth, not as an attempt of identity theft. I'm very proud of my name, we are a diverse and well respected crowd.
Lol, of course. But your missing my point I think. Its not so much that there are other people on fb that have your name, its that someone could impersonate you on fb whether you had an account or not. It would not be particularly difficult for someone that knew you to create a profile, use your real address and so forth, upload your real picture, join some groups, friend some people, post real stuff about your life (previous / current job, hobbies, etc, and then post a ton of juvenile asinine crap, and result in you not getting a job because someone who looked you up found this alternative "you". And they'd know it was you because the picture matched the guy they interviewed, and they noticed amongst the ranting and ravings that they mentioned working at the place mentioned in your resume, and so on.
If you aren't on facebook, you have no defense against this.
But joining facebook doesn't actually help you all that much either, especially if you aren't all that active. That was my point. You seemed to suggest that by joining fb you'd at least control "your own identity", but even that isn't necessarily true.
In all seriousness, I've been told that when looking for a house you want to find one that was built during a recession. In theory, people were able to chose better contractors during hard times, whereas boom-time houses are more likely to be slapped together quickly to make a buck.
I don't think that is a reliable indicator. Its true boom-time houses are often built as quickly as possible to get on to the next project; its true some developers cut corners get cut to save time.
But recession housing has a counter-indicator as well... the contractors are often on hard times themselves, and cut corners to bring costs down. I live in a multi home development, that was started during the boom, and was finished as the recession hit hard. There is a noticeable degradation in the quality as you move from the homes that were done first to the ones that were done last. Little details, for example: my unit, an early unit, can turn the lights at the bottom of the stairs using a switch at the top or at the bottom. Later units, only have the one switch at the bottom.
Even worse are projects where developers/contractors were bankrupted during construction. The last thing you want is a home that was half built, then went into limbo for 5 months with some plastic sheets keeping the weather out, and then finished up by another contractor/developer as inexpensively as possible so that they might still turn a profit on them.
Ultimately I think good and bad homes can be built in any economic climate. But a good reputable developer working in a healthy or better economy probably is probably the safest bet. A crappy developer is going to do crappy work in any economy, but even good developers will cut corners if they fall on hard times.
All you've demonstrated is that it doesn't matter if you create an account or not. Even if I had a facebook account, you could still create one on my behalf, stick my picture on it, friend people, post comments. The fact I'd have a 'real' account that I don't use much doesn't prevent you from doing any of this...
If I bought the GoogleTV or AppleTV for my nearly 80-year-old parents would it (1) be able to connect to their old composite-only set? What about S-video?
Buy an HDMI to composite adapter for $10.00.
2) How easy would it be for them to use? Right now they barely comprehend how to change channels on the Digital-to-analog Converter box ("How do I get this damn TV Guide off the screen???"), so I'm a bit skeptical they could operate either of the internet-based boxes.
If they can manage an iPod they can probably manage AppleTV. If not, then don't buy them one.
(3) Does it work over a 1000 kbit/s line? Or would they need to download first and watch later?
80 years old, can't figure out how to operate a cable box, but they have gigabit internet access...? Let me guess, and a gentoo media server connected to an openfiler box with iSCSI drives?
I assume they operate this through a remote control with one button on it that simply sends a jolt of electricity through your genitals to alert you to come running? ;)
"law enforcement officer" im assuming
'The 100th post about your favorite band is no longer interesting,' he said."
The first post wasn't interesting. It just took 100 for it to reach the point of "I'd rather not see anything from you at all."
I have a 24" 1920x1200 panel... but those are few and far between and some are not so good for gaming or fast movement of black text on white.
I do to too 24" 1920x1200 is pretty much the minimum size I'd buy. I also sprung for an S-IPS model. HP LP2475w -- its not new anymore, well over a year old... and cost more than other options, but it is good for video, for gaming, has great viewing angles and colour, matte finish, and tons of input options. (hdmi, displayport, dvi, vga, even composite...)
I still have my previous monitor attached as a 2ndary, a 1280x1024 P-MVA 19" Viewsonic VP930b -- another monitor that was rated extremely well in all categories for its day, but the HP is noticably better. One of my criteria when upgrading from it was to increase vertical resoution. I'm not sure what I'd buy if I were buying today, but I've noticed that like anything -- good stuff is out there, but the store shelves are stuffed with cheap gimmicky crap.
I'd love to get an even taller moniter... a 2560x1600 30" S-IPS would be heaven, but for the price you could buy half a dozen cheaper screeens.
Do people call babies "armtops"?
No, but small dogs are commonly called lap dogs.
Watches "wristtops"?
"Wrist watches" actually.
Glasses "ear/nose-tops"?
Do you mean eyeglasses?
Or we also have have a particular style called pince-nez, which is french for "pinch nose".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pince-nez
Still feeling smug?
The only thing you can know for sure (more or less), is the traffic statistics on *your* site, which, to the developer, should be pretty much the only ones that matter. Pro tip: explain that last sentence to your clients.
Step 1: Design a site that only works with IE
Step 2: Monitor traffic and notice that the stats for Firefox or Safari are way down.
Step 3: Advise management that there is no need to develop for alternative browsers based on the traffic to your site.
Let me refer you to the second sentence of the summary:
"The biggest change is leveraging Google's SSL search option to provide an anonymizing service which doesn't require you to trust either Google or GoogleSharing."
Wow.
You are right. That says I don't have trust google or googlesharing. ... assuming I trust the entity that makes that claim.
Oh. The entity making the claim that I don't need to trust GoogleSharing is GoogleSharing. Neat.
So if I don't trust googlesharing, why would my distrust be satisfied by the fact that they claim I don't need to trust them? That makes about as much sense as a fly asking the spider if he can take a nap on the web... the spider said he wasn't hungry... I guess there's nothing to worry about. :facepalm
Now, if you had instead referred me to the googlesharing FAQ:
http://googlesharing.net/faq.html#faq6
"If you're still worried, remember that the GoogleSharing addon and proxy code is publicly available. So it's possible for you to run a GoogleSharing proxy yourself, or to find someone who you do trust."
That's at least a step in the right direction. I can inspect and run the software on a server I do trust.*
And if I use the GoogleSharing servers, than I do still need to trust GoogleSharing to be running the software they claim to be running. I expect they are worthy of that trust but you still have to trust them unless you are running your own server after inspecting the source.*
** And you will need to find a bunch of people who trust YOU using your server for you to derive any privacy benefit from running your own server. Bit of a catch-22 there.
I think that most of the people who are qualified to setup and maintain their own router are also qualified enough to determine exactly which of their machines are infected
1) You go to best buy and plug $59 for a 4 port router box.
2) You take it home and plug it into the wall.
3) You plug the WAN port on the router to the cable or dsl box. - this is the hardest part to get right
4) You plug your computers into the other ports and start accessing the internet
People qualified to do the above are not qualified to determine which of their machines are infected.
I'm not sure that humanized and angry Elves...
After having read the silmarillion, that's precisely why I liked Tolkien's elves. They weren't protypical 'good'; they were generally good but they committed their share of atrocities...
Have you even used the Real ID friends list?
Of course not. I personally think World of Warcraft sucks monkey balls as a game.
(I realize millions of people apparently think otherwise, and I'm happy for them.)
I enjoyed DiabloII and Starcraft enough, but didn't care to play either through battle.net or whatever its called now. And Starcraft II ... meh... I'll wait until the expansions are out and maybe buy the box set then.
I thought he covered it in his post:
by failing to make privacy and security a priority from the start, you ruined any chance I'd trust you to handle it right,.
Doesn't really matter if they 'backtracked' and 'fixed it up AFTER the community when batshit' to him.
In other words everyone is doing what they should do. The powerful party is doing all it can to oppress the weaker party. The weaker party is doing all it can to escape the thumb of oppression.
Nothing to see here?
If one party has giant pile of nukes, and the other doesn't, why *should* the treaty be balanced?
Why *shouldn't* the party that doesn't have a giant pile of nukes want to balance it?
You're right, The Sims hasn't been any kind of success, and there isn't any large following of that series either because of it. Nobody likes that shit! Other games that simulate "real life" activities fail just as horribly- Nobody plays, say, Madden, or Skate, because you can play football or go skateboarding in real life! ...We done here?
But it not because they are 'just like real life'. That's a catastrophically stupid reason to implement a game mechanic. If mimicing real life makes it fun, then do it, otherwise do something else. The Sims is nothing like real life, although it carefully mimics parts of it. It even mimics things that aren't fun, because the mimicry itself is still humourous.
You'll note with the sims in particular you play some sort of god-voyeur construct. Is that anything like real-life? Hell no, but its the only way it would be entertaining and fun. Can you imagine playing the sims being forced to actually personally act out one of their banal little lives? Think that would sell well...?
Just curious, is there ever a time in real life where you can either choose to buy a hat or just walk around until said hat appears out of the aether for free?
You realize that your just further arguing my point right?
Not quite. Fix the election process. I advocate things like STV and related election reforms.
If I wanted to make real world spending decisions about new hats I'd go to the mall. I even get a real hat.
I don't need to buy a game for the privilege of experiencing spending money 'just like real life' on things that don't even exist or belong to me after 'buying' them.
Further, if just like real life was a good reason to implement something than team fortress 2 would have you lose a limb in the first firefight and then spend six to 12 months teaching your avatar to walk with a prosthetic and try to build a new life far away from combat.
Games are about providing enjoyment and entertainment. If you want to argue that spending real money on in game hats is somehow more fun than other methods of getting in game hats then feel free to make that case. But falling back on 'its just like real life' is completely specious.
I'm doing it because it is a ruinous "solution" to the problem.
The point was that your proposed solution was even worse.