I don't see how blowing up sidewalk cafes and city buses could EVER be counted as revolutionary.
If Italy had soldiers with full military equipment in my hometown, and said I had to vote in this new election to select my new representatives for a government that Italy was kind enough to setup for me. What are my options for resisting these Italian troops after they have confiscated my arms and replaced my police force with their own appointees.
Italy could be doing it for all the 'right' reasons. But I understand why someone would lash out at the only target that was available.
So your argument is that it's hard to be a conservative because the conservative position starts by ignoring the moral purpose of providing public services, and therefore needs much more careful thought to avoid making rash, ill-thought-out budget cuts which could create grave public harm?
Thank you for proving my point by jumping to the conclusion that the only way I could possibly want to cut back on a public service is because I'm immoral, rash, and ignorant.
It's not like Colorado Springs is a particularly poor city or anything, the people there could probably afford the tax hike, but heaven forbid that they actually pay for the services (and the jobs to go with them) that the city provides!
Note: Conservative in this post refers to reduced-waste conservative, not religious 'C'onservative.
Is it not possible that they don't want the services? It's hard for a conservative to argue with someone who just wants to 'give' you something in the form of government services.
You can't argue that "This service is bad". You can't argue that something like a Fire Dept is just plain bad. It's a fire department, you know, firemen, good guys, saving houses and lives.
That's why it is harder to be a conservative. We have to argue "Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of our Fire Department, but they cost us too much money. Here are examples as to why their budget needs to be reduced because...." eg: They could be buying new engines every year just for parades. Maybe they bought a special ladder truck that's all the rage but only marginally better than a normal truck on only 3% of the city.
But the counter-argument against the conservative is as simple as "They want to cut firemen's jobs and make your town less safe."
As a conservative, you can't win this argument even though you could be making the city more efficient. It's never easy being the 'bad guy' when it comes time to say, "We just shouldn't or can't spend our money frivolously."
Then you lose your job. The OP is not asking how to protect his job. He's asking how to protect his private data while accessing it on a company PC. That includes some risk.
Even better, he isn't asking how to protect it while he is accessing it. He is really asking how to protect it when he is DEAD!
Which makes the threat of being fired all the more laughable. Unless of course, he didn't use a metaphor and his boss literally IS satan. Then I guess the threat of being fired is probably relevant again.
re you trolling, or did you actually just do this?
I like HDMI. I just spent two posts explaining why I like HDMI, and why it has nothing whatsoever to do with HDCP.
So why would you ever assume I was defending HDCP?
Because in none of my posts I never mentioned HDCP, and yet YOU brought it up. Or did you just respond to my post with the comment "nothing to do with HDCP" for the hell of it? I was complaining about HDMI's form factor and how it makes things harder to resolve when you can't independently work on the problem (audio or video). You brought up HDCP, so I tossed my 2c in on the subject.
Instead of building panels for your house, let's say that the Government paid you a crapload of money to build a solar array for the community. I'd argue that no, you don't get to chose who connects and gets priority on your fancy solar array.
It all depends on the conditions for that crapload of money. Even then, the conditions for building out to neighborhoods and extending their networks aren't even as close to building a solar array. It's very much offered as an incentive for the business to extend their networks.
It isn't much of an incentive to extend your service area if by extending it you are selling it to the government.
Because the government has given them billions to build out infrastructure. Therefore infrastructure is definitely NOT private property. The government merely grant them rights to operate and profit from the infrastructure that they were paid to build.
So when the government pays me to build solar panels on my roof, or I receive money from the government as part of the first time homebuyer's credit. Does that make my home NOT private property? Look, the government gives out billions of dollars for TONS of projects because the project itself benefits the country and it is agreed to before hand if what is produced is publicly or privately owned. Simply accepting government money to perform a task does NOT mean it is public property by default.
If I run a business, and the government comes to me and says "Hey we want you to expand your business into this market." And I respond "No, I don't want to." Then the government offers "Here is $X as a bonus if you expand your business into this market." That doesn't mean my business can then be taken over by the government without FURTHER compensation unless at the moment I take $X, there is an agreement in place that the business or just the new market will be owned by the government.
What if taxpayer money was used to pay for all or part of the privately owned infrastructure?
If the money was already spent, then I hope whatever agreement was reached for that money is honored. Just because taxpayer money touches some aspect of a product/service/person/etc shouldn't give the government complete freedom to alter the agreements after the fact, or use it like some mafia boss owed a favor.
Bad analogy, since this is leased equipment from Verizon, it's more like you rent an apartment and the landlord changes the busted up locks on your door or performs other various maintenance on their property for you. If you haven't rented before, I can tell you that is quite normal.
And with a good relationship from the landlord, it can be a very nice relationship. It's part of the reason why I rent instead of own (err rent from bank).
I don't have to worry about maintenance of the property beyond basic housekeeping. My landlord cuts the grass, repairs the water heater, trims the trees, maintains the furnace. However, if he wants to come into the house (he has the keys) he will call first and make sure it is ok with me.
However, even then I don't have much of an issue with Verizon's actions. How different is this than forcing you to change the default password on your first login that many systems require you to do? In this case, Verizon didn't often require anyone to have a first logon, so they just required the forced change.
I know that the original guy said he owned the router, but if he left it in the default configuration, he shouldn't be surprised that what was likely an automated process checking the Verizon leased equipment happened to check his router (especially if it was the same model).
Yeah, but in the end HE is still the one riding on the yacht and taking trips to Rio. While the deckhands are likely paid a pittance for a similar amount of work.
Compare: We discovered life on Earth in a red rock. We found red rocks on Mars, therefore they might be hiding evidence of life! Or not...
Isn't it more like saying:
If there were life on Mars, based on our experience on Earth in looking at similar formations, these rock formations seem to be the most likely to have preserved evidence of past life.
May, might, maybe. I am optimistic, but let me know when they actually find life and not every speculation someone has each day.
That may be all you are interested in, but if we all ignored everything until it was confirmed then nothing would ever be done. Granted the headline is WILDLY optimistic and on that I agree with you, since what was proposed was merely to investigate a site which is expected to have fossils if there were ever life to make those fossils.
Even still this is a necessary part of what science IS.
Observations were made. A Hypothesis was formed. Tests were proposed.
Learning about what was suggested and planned for those steps is something that interests a great number of people here.
In any case, I think the point stands -- your complaints all have nothing whatsoever to do with HDCP. I'm not claiming it's perfect, but I really hate when people get the two confused.
How about this one then:
Why does it need to exist at all? What is the benefit in having extra encryption applied that does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of the experience?
The problem for me is that because we are all paying the same amount, everyone (or the government) thinks that we should not be allowed to take any risks with our own bodies, otherwise we'll "be a burden on the healthcare system". That fucks me off. Again have no qualms about state run monopolies when: A) private companies are legally allowed to compete with them, B) everyone pays for real value of their own, so that I can smoke crack and ride a Harley with no helmet on, if I so choose.
Thank you. The concept that because your actions may 'burden' the government, then the government may tell you what to do down to the most basic fundamentals of life, what you may or may not eat.
And that people somehow view the government pushing itself that far down your throat as a good thing, depresses me.
you want to split the audio from the picture you can still do what everyone else does with a home theater system (or those of us with surround sound). You use the old RCA ended plugs or optical sound out from the TV/satellite box/cable box/blue ray/DVD/whatever device into the sound device.
I missed this part in my other replay to you, basically, THAT is what my video card is disabling because it thinks that it has an HDMI link even though it doesn't do audio over HDMI. Crappy NVIDIA drivers are to blame.
You need a receiver that takes HDMI in and out. Then you could send the video from the receiver to the TV and use the receiver for the audio.
Except that my current one works fine. It processes audio. It's this attempt to force everything to one pipe that breaks things and there is no technological advantage in doing so. It's not like the signal being sent through the HDMI cable is any better than the optical one currently being sent to my receiver.
But buying new hardware to fix what is literally a software problem (since I can fix it with a simple driver hack) isn't a real solution. I'd be much happier with HDMI if it just passed signals and didn't try to force a lot of other changes onto our hardware. I know for a fact that this is an artifact of the whole 'disable analog outputs' if HDCP is present. Manufacturers took that to mean that if there is a HDMI cable, they disable EVERYTHING else. I've seen it happen on cable receivers and now my video card. It's just annoying.
Pass the data, and don't try to force me to use a physical format I don't want to use.
I'm pretty sure you're doing it wrong. I'm not sure what OS you're using, but I have a pretty much identical setup using HDMI to my display and the sound card running the audio to my speakers. In Vista, I have the option of choosing which output I would prefer. If I choose HDMI, the sound goes to the display. If I choose the sound card, everything works.
Just because you can't configure it doesn't mean HDMI is evil.
Windows XP.
But it does mean that HDMI is my problem. It's not a direct fault of HDMI, but it is a consequence of having a unified system.
Consider it a cascade of an error that begins with my TV.
1. Ideally I'd like my TV to be able to say "I'm not processing Audio via HDMI" Many TVs do this. That would solve my problem 2. I'd like for my video card not to override my sound card. That would solve my problem.
As I said before, I edited the NVIDIA drivers to get it to work. But yeah, I must just not know how to configure HDMI cables....
As for PC's video look at the video card driver and how it is supposed to be setup. Nvidia uses a connection from the sound card (on board or card) to the video card to send the sound through the HDMI cable. ATI does it through software (according to what I have read).
Many NVIDIA cards lack this option.
Software means that my computer is being taxed more than it needs to and may impact performance (bad for games).
DVI does not have sound, only video. You can actually rig certain cards to send audio over DVI, but that's just a side note. In general, yes DVI does not pass sound, but some cards can be rigged to do so. Probability of success depends on luck with your equipment selection.
If you use a DVI to HDMI cable (or adapter) you will only get picture and no sound. If you do have a separate system for sound this should not be an issue. Send the picture to the TV and the sound directly to your sound system. Isn't that what you are looking for in the first place?
You are correct, I WANT my audio to go to my receiver for processing, HDMI is preventing me from doing that. My equipment is perfectly acceptable as is and can process audio very well. It just doesn't support HDMI. When I just use a DVI cable + audio cables, I'm fine. The problem occurs when I run HDMI + audio cables.
The HDMI cable sends back via EDID that the TV can support audio over HDMI. (which it can) The video card says "DURR OK, I'LL TURN OFF the standalone audio ports and just send you the digital feed" The digital feed, since the port is DVI is Null or zero.
As a result it TURNS OFF the audio because it thinks it should be sending the audio over the DVI port since the Television is reporting via it's EDID that on the TV end it is all set to receive audio via HDMI. The television thinks everything is fine because it IS getting an audio signal, the signal is just silence.
The thing is, this wouldn't be a problem if the video card said "I SEND VIDEO, THAT'S ALL I DO" My sound card goes "AUDIO OUT", and the TV said "HERE IS WHERE I MONITOR FOR VIDEO FEEDS"
Until HDMI started getting into the mix and my equipment started locking me out of the process, it wasn't a problem. Everything worked. Now that everything is converging, it is causing me a hassle.
Think of it this way:
You went and bought an All-in-One PC (imac), but you found out the CD drive sucked and wanted a DVD drive. Well they didn't have a DVD drive so you had to buy an external drive, as a result, you have a useless CD drive that you can't remove because it's built into the case and the DVD drive sits outside of the case.
As a result, by forcing you to choose ONE way of hooking up things, they broke the design more than ever since now you have parts that you don't use, don't work, or extra parts that you had to add which don't really fit in the all in one solution since it wasn't designed to operate outside of a very formal setting.
may be wrong, but going downwind faster than the wind is only possible because sailboats have a keel which transfers some of the sideways force into a forward force
You are close.
Sails generally act as a vertical airfoil. You point it into the wind, and the force is created due to a pressure differential. This is just a guess, as I'm not a sailor, but wouldn't the sail(s)'s surface area be the major factor in allowing a larger force to be extracted? (The keel plays a factor, but it isn't the reason why a boat can travel faster than the wind)
Your boat would accelerate until the drag forces equal the motive forces of the sail. So the velocity of the wind isn't the hard cap of your final velocity.
(However, wouldn't this mean that a wind directly at your back would prevent you from traveling any faster than it since you wouldn't be able to generate any 'lift' in your sail once you reached the velocity of the wind).
However, I'm not a sailor, and I've never been on a sailboat, so I could be dead wrong.
FTFA: By unifying video and audio into a single cable manufacturers have been able to make their products easier to set up than ever before. And you HDMI is basically DVI in a better form factor.
I'm going to disagree with both of these statements. To the first, I almost had to toss the bullshit flag.
First, by tying the audio into the cable, it really ties my hands with how I want to design my system. Perhaps I want to run the audio to a receiver or processor first instead of to my television? Well, I'll have to have a receiver that handles HDMI, or I'll have to split the audio out of the HDMI cable and send that to the receiver.
My PC has horrid issues with HDMI, since most video cards did not support audio over HDMI, you could run DVI to a HDMI port on your TV, or straight HDMI... but then your television would tell your computer that it supported Audio over HDMI and your video card (NVIDIA in this case) would turn OFF your audio ports except over HDMI, of course, since my card didn't support audio over HDMI, it just output a 0 for the audio signal. I had to hack the drivers and EDID in order to trick my computer into thinking my display couldn't support HDMI audio. Every time I want to update my drivers, I have to edit the driver. This issue has been around for years, was fixed in some driver versions, reverted in others.
This is only a problem because of the convergence of audio into HDMI, and it is only the tip of the iceberg when you consider all of the potential issues that people can encounter.
As for the connector itself... No, I much preferred DVI (Thumbscrews were great especially if you used a laptop) HDMI has a horrid connector that puts a lot of pressure in the wrong places and is easily dislodged.
Please give me my distinct audio and video cables back, I hate having a bottleneck.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't see how blowing up sidewalk cafes and city buses could EVER be counted as revolutionary.
If Italy had soldiers with full military equipment in my hometown, and said I had to vote in this new election to select my new representatives for a government that Italy was kind enough to setup for me. What are my options for resisting these Italian troops after they have confiscated my arms and replaced my police force with their own appointees.
Italy could be doing it for all the 'right' reasons. But I understand why someone would lash out at the only target that was available.
So your argument is that it's hard to be a conservative because the conservative position starts by ignoring the moral purpose of providing public services, and therefore needs much more careful thought to avoid making rash, ill-thought-out budget cuts which could create grave public harm?
Thank you for proving my point by jumping to the conclusion that the only way I could possibly want to cut back on a public service is because I'm immoral, rash, and ignorant.
It's not like Colorado Springs is a particularly poor city or anything, the people there could probably afford the tax hike, but heaven forbid that they actually pay for the services (and the jobs to go with them) that the city provides!
Note: Conservative in this post refers to reduced-waste conservative, not religious 'C'onservative.
Is it not possible that they don't want the services? It's hard for a conservative to argue with someone who just wants to 'give' you something in the form of government services.
You can't argue that "This service is bad". You can't argue that something like a Fire Dept is just plain bad. It's a fire department, you know, firemen, good guys, saving houses and lives.
That's why it is harder to be a conservative. We have to argue "Yes, there is nothing inherently wrong with the concept of our Fire Department, but they cost us too much money. Here are examples as to why their budget needs to be reduced because...." eg: They could be buying new engines every year just for parades. Maybe they bought a special ladder truck that's all the rage but only marginally better than a normal truck on only 3% of the city.
But the counter-argument against the conservative is as simple as "They want to cut firemen's jobs and make your town less safe."
As a conservative, you can't win this argument even though you could be making the city more efficient. It's never easy being the 'bad guy' when it comes time to say, "We just shouldn't or can't spend our money frivolously."
Then you lose your job. The OP is not asking how to protect his job. He's asking how to protect his private data while accessing it on a company PC. That includes some risk.
Even better, he isn't asking how to protect it while he is accessing it. He is really asking how to protect it when he is DEAD!
Which makes the threat of being fired all the more laughable. Unless of course, he didn't use a metaphor and his boss literally IS satan. Then I guess the threat of being fired is probably relevant again.
and my clothes iron has a tag on the power cord saying "warning: do not iron clothes while wearing them."
The only time I've ever burned myself on an iron is when I was naked. TMI? or Not enough? Either way, good luck getting THAT image out of your head.
Well, I have a 6 figure hourly rate, don't you?
Of course. I bill to the 10th of a cent.
re you trolling, or did you actually just do this?
I like HDMI. I just spent two posts explaining why I like HDMI, and why it has nothing whatsoever to do with HDCP.
So why would you ever assume I was defending HDCP?
Because in none of my posts I never mentioned HDCP, and yet YOU brought it up. Or did you just respond to my post with the comment "nothing to do with HDCP" for the hell of it?
I was complaining about HDMI's form factor and how it makes things harder to resolve when you can't independently work on the problem (audio or video). You brought up HDCP, so I tossed my 2c in on the subject.
Instead of building panels for your house, let's say that the Government paid you a crapload of money to build a solar array for the community. I'd argue that no, you don't get to chose who connects and gets priority on your fancy solar array.
It all depends on the conditions for that crapload of money. Even then, the conditions for building out to neighborhoods and extending their networks aren't even as close to building a solar array. It's very much offered as an incentive for the business to extend their networks.
It isn't much of an incentive to extend your service area if by extending it you are selling it to the government.
Because the government has given them billions to build out infrastructure. Therefore infrastructure is definitely NOT private property. The government merely grant them rights to operate and profit from the infrastructure that they were paid to build.
So when the government pays me to build solar panels on my roof, or I receive money from the government as part of the first time homebuyer's credit. Does that make my home NOT private property? Look, the government gives out billions of dollars for TONS of projects because the project itself benefits the country and it is agreed to before hand if what is produced is publicly or privately owned. Simply accepting government money to perform a task does NOT mean it is public property by default.
If I run a business, and the government comes to me and says "Hey we want you to expand your business into this market." And I respond "No, I don't want to." Then the government offers "Here is $X as a bonus if you expand your business into this market." That doesn't mean my business can then be taken over by the government without FURTHER compensation unless at the moment I take $X, there is an agreement in place that the business or just the new market will be owned by the government.
What if taxpayer money was used to pay for all or part of the privately owned infrastructure?
If the money was already spent, then I hope whatever agreement was reached for that money is honored. Just because taxpayer money touches some aspect of a product/service/person/etc shouldn't give the government complete freedom to alter the agreements after the fact, or use it like some mafia boss owed a favor.
Bad analogy, since this is leased equipment from Verizon, it's more like you rent an apartment and the landlord changes the busted up locks on your door or performs other various maintenance on their property for you. If you haven't rented before, I can tell you that is quite normal.
And with a good relationship from the landlord, it can be a very nice relationship. It's part of the reason why I rent instead of own (err rent from bank).
I don't have to worry about maintenance of the property beyond basic housekeeping. My landlord cuts the grass, repairs the water heater, trims the trees, maintains the furnace. However, if he wants to come into the house (he has the keys) he will call first and make sure it is ok with me.
However, even then I don't have much of an issue with Verizon's actions. How different is this than forcing you to change the default password on your first login that many systems require you to do? In this case, Verizon didn't often require anyone to have a first logon, so they just required the forced change.
I know that the original guy said he owned the router, but if he left it in the default configuration, he shouldn't be surprised that what was likely an automated process checking the Verizon leased equipment happened to check his router (especially if it was the same model).
Yeah, but in the end HE is still the one riding on the yacht and taking trips to Rio. While the deckhands are likely paid a pittance for a similar amount of work.
Compare: We discovered life on Earth in a red rock. We found red rocks on Mars, therefore they might be hiding evidence of life! Or not...
Isn't it more like saying:
If there were life on Mars, based on our experience on Earth in looking at similar formations, these rock formations seem to be the most likely to have preserved evidence of past life.
May, might, maybe. I am optimistic, but let me know when they actually find life and not every speculation someone has each day.
That may be all you are interested in, but if we all ignored everything until it was confirmed then nothing would ever be done. Granted the headline is WILDLY optimistic and on that I agree with you, since what was proposed was merely to investigate a site which is expected to have fossils if there were ever life to make those fossils.
Even still this is a necessary part of what science IS.
Observations were made.
A Hypothesis was formed.
Tests were proposed.
Learning about what was suggested and planned for those steps is something that interests a great number of people here.
In any case, I think the point stands -- your complaints all have nothing whatsoever to do with HDCP. I'm not claiming it's perfect, but I really hate when people get the two confused.
How about this one then:
Why does it need to exist at all? What is the benefit in having extra encryption applied that does absolutely nothing to improve the quality of the experience?
Maybe he was surprised it worked ;)
The problem for me is that because we are all paying the same amount, everyone (or the government) thinks that we should not be allowed to take any risks with our own bodies, otherwise we'll "be a burden on the healthcare system".
That fucks me off. Again have no qualms about state run monopolies when: A) private companies are legally allowed to compete with them, B) everyone pays for real value of their own, so that I can smoke crack and ride a Harley with no helmet on, if I so choose.
Thank you. The concept that because your actions may 'burden' the government, then the government may tell you what to do down to the most basic fundamentals of life, what you may or may not eat.
And that people somehow view the government pushing itself that far down your throat as a good thing, depresses me.
you want to split the audio from the picture you can still do what everyone else does with a home theater system (or those of us with surround sound). You use the old RCA ended plugs or optical sound out from the TV/satellite box/cable box/blue ray/DVD/whatever device into the sound device.
I missed this part in my other replay to you, basically, THAT is what my video card is disabling because it thinks that it has an HDMI link even though it doesn't do audio over HDMI. Crappy NVIDIA drivers are to blame.
You need a receiver that takes HDMI in and out. Then you could send the video from the receiver to the TV and use the receiver for the audio.
Except that my current one works fine. It processes audio. It's this attempt to force everything to one pipe that breaks things and there is no technological advantage in doing so. It's not like the signal being sent through the HDMI cable is any better than the optical one currently being sent to my receiver.
But buying new hardware to fix what is literally a software problem (since I can fix it with a simple driver hack) isn't a real solution. I'd be much happier with HDMI if it just passed signals and didn't try to force a lot of other changes onto our hardware. I know for a fact that this is an artifact of the whole 'disable analog outputs' if HDCP is present. Manufacturers took that to mean that if there is a HDMI cable, they disable EVERYTHING else. I've seen it happen on cable receivers and now my video card. It's just annoying.
Pass the data, and don't try to force me to use a physical format I don't want to use.
I'm pretty sure you're doing it wrong. I'm not sure what OS you're using, but I have a pretty much identical setup using HDMI to my display and the sound card running the audio to my speakers. In Vista, I have the option of choosing which output I would prefer. If I choose HDMI, the sound goes to the display. If I choose the sound card, everything works.
Just because you can't configure it doesn't mean HDMI is evil.
Windows XP.
But it does mean that HDMI is my problem. It's not a direct fault of HDMI, but it is a consequence of having a unified system.
Consider it a cascade of an error that begins with my TV.
1. Ideally I'd like my TV to be able to say "I'm not processing Audio via HDMI" Many TVs do this. That would solve my problem
2. I'd like for my video card not to override my sound card. That would solve my problem.
As I said before, I edited the NVIDIA drivers to get it to work. But yeah, I must just not know how to configure HDMI cables....
Sorry, not allowed. You said "words". Now you want to amend that to "non-English words, or English words with unusual etymologies"?
As if this were a formal debate? I'll amend it however the hell I want.
As for PC's video look at the video card driver and how it is supposed to be setup. Nvidia uses a connection from the sound card (on board or card) to the video card to send the sound through the HDMI cable. ATI does it through software (according to what I have read).
Many NVIDIA cards lack this option.
Software means that my computer is being taxed more than it needs to and may impact performance (bad for games).
DVI does not have sound, only video.
You can actually rig certain cards to send audio over DVI, but that's just a side note. In general, yes DVI does not pass sound, but some cards can be rigged to do so. Probability of success depends on luck with your equipment selection.
If you use a DVI to HDMI cable (or adapter) you will only get picture and no sound. If you do have a separate system for sound this should not be an issue. Send the picture to the TV and the sound directly to your sound system. Isn't that what you are looking for in the first place?
You are correct, I WANT my audio to go to my receiver for processing, HDMI is preventing me from doing that. My equipment is perfectly acceptable as is and can process audio very well. It just doesn't support HDMI. When I just use a DVI cable + audio cables, I'm fine. The problem occurs when I run HDMI + audio cables.
The HDMI cable sends back via EDID that the TV can support audio over HDMI. (which it can) The video card says "DURR OK, I'LL TURN OFF the standalone audio ports and just send you the digital feed" The digital feed, since the port is DVI is Null or zero.
As a result it TURNS OFF the audio because it thinks it should be sending the audio over the DVI port since the Television is reporting via it's EDID that on the TV end it is all set to receive audio via HDMI. The television thinks everything is fine because it IS getting an audio signal, the signal is just silence.
The thing is, this wouldn't be a problem if the video card said "I SEND VIDEO, THAT'S ALL I DO" My sound card goes "AUDIO OUT", and the TV said "HERE IS WHERE I MONITOR FOR VIDEO FEEDS"
Until HDMI started getting into the mix and my equipment started locking me out of the process, it wasn't a problem. Everything worked. Now that everything is converging, it is causing me a hassle.
Think of it this way:
You went and bought an All-in-One PC (imac), but you found out the CD drive sucked and wanted a DVD drive. Well they didn't have a DVD drive so you had to buy an external drive, as a result, you have a useless CD drive that you can't remove because it's built into the case and the DVD drive sits outside of the case.
As a result, by forcing you to choose ONE way of hooking up things, they broke the design more than ever since now you have parts that you don't use, don't work, or extra parts that you had to add which don't really fit in the all in one solution since it wasn't designed to operate outside of a very formal setting.
may be wrong, but going downwind faster than the wind is only possible because sailboats have a keel which transfers some of the sideways force into a forward force
You are close.
Sails generally act as a vertical airfoil. You point it into the wind, and the force is created due to a pressure differential. This is just a guess, as I'm not a sailor, but wouldn't the sail(s)'s surface area be the major factor in allowing a larger force to be extracted? (The keel plays a factor, but it isn't the reason why a boat can travel faster than the wind)
Your boat would accelerate until the drag forces equal the motive forces of the sail. So the velocity of the wind isn't the hard cap of your final velocity.
(However, wouldn't this mean that a wind directly at your back would prevent you from traveling any faster than it since you wouldn't be able to generate any 'lift' in your sail once you reached the velocity of the wind).
However, I'm not a sailor, and I've never been on a sailboat, so I could be dead wrong.
FTFA: By unifying video and audio into a single cable manufacturers have been able to make their products easier to set up than ever before.
And you HDMI is basically DVI in a better form factor.
I'm going to disagree with both of these statements. To the first, I almost had to toss the bullshit flag.
First, by tying the audio into the cable, it really ties my hands with how I want to design my system. Perhaps I want to run the audio to a receiver or processor first instead of to my television? Well, I'll have to have a receiver that handles HDMI, or I'll have to split the audio out of the HDMI cable and send that to the receiver.
My PC has horrid issues with HDMI, since most video cards did not support audio over HDMI, you could run DVI to a HDMI port on your TV, or straight HDMI... but then your television would tell your computer that it supported Audio over HDMI and your video card (NVIDIA in this case) would turn OFF your audio ports except over HDMI, of course, since my card didn't support audio over HDMI, it just output a 0 for the audio signal. I had to hack the drivers and EDID in order to trick my computer into thinking my display couldn't support HDMI audio. Every time I want to update my drivers, I have to edit the driver. This issue has been around for years, was fixed in some driver versions, reverted in others.
This is only a problem because of the convergence of audio into HDMI, and it is only the tip of the iceberg when you consider all of the potential issues that people can encounter.
As for the connector itself...
No, I much preferred DVI (Thumbscrews were great especially if you used a laptop) HDMI has a horrid connector that puts a lot of pressure in the wrong places and is easily dislodged.
Please give me my distinct audio and video cables back, I hate having a bottleneck.
Look up the etymology of those words.