>> "...can run coast to coast without ever relying on the battery being charged from an outside source."
Well, coast to coast is a finite distance, so no claim of perpetual motion is made here.
and
>> "The very essence of the technology to be demonstrated is the capability to keep the batteries "topped up" at all times with the "on board" device invented by Carl B. Tilley."
Yes, and we're talking about batteries here, that will inevitably break down and cease to function, given enough time and use.
and most importantly
>> " In fact, as the demonstration will prove, at the end of the allotted time period the battery bank will still register a FULL CHARGE condition!"
And after enough use, that won't work anymore. Perpetual motion is not implied anywhere in the various writings you can find about this.
Do you mean you're actually running the signal THROUGH the Beta, or playing the movie on the Beta? Just to see if we're on the same page here, I mean that basically you plugging the Beta in between two lengths of coaxial going from VHS1 to VHS2.
If that IS what you mean and you're getting the signal, I find that fascinating because technically it shouldn't happen. (Something to do with the automatic gain happening at a different time on the Beta to the VHS. Can't remember the technicalities.)
Yes, I've tried it both ways, the protection is in the video signal itself, and affects my modern VHS the same way whether it's
a) Raw from the source (source is RCA type connection) b) Taped to beta and then played to the VHS c) Piped through the beta live via coax or RCA
My Sony VHS and my capture cards respond to the signal somewhat less when it's coming from the beta on tape, but they still respond enough to wreck a recording. When the signal is simply piped through, it's fully intact and fully ugly. Perhaps I have an anomoly of some sort in my setup?
Hang on to those Beta VCR's folks. I have. Why? They make EXCEPTIONAL Macrovision filters. Run the signal through the Beta, voila, no Macrovision.
I dunno, might depend on what you have. I've got 3 betas, and while they can record and playback a macro'ed movie just fine, the signal coming through the machine (or from the beta tape) has the signal in it still, and triggers my VHS/capture card to disrupt the picture.
What about industry? Certainly you shouldn't be excepted to adhere to the contract if you work for Advance Micro Devices making motherboards and your invention has to do with a way to improve lipstick - your employer should have NO claim to your invention since it in no way had anything whatsoever to do with your employment or even your employers industry.
Further, what if you wrote a book and published it? Say a mystery novel...
An excellent point there. DSC's claims seem to reflect the type of thinking you are illustrating here, and the book-writing angle is a great example that could work against them for real. If it can be shown that any of their employees, who had also signed such agreements, have ever in fact had ideas and personally published some totally unrelated novel/writing and NOT been sued by the company, this would erode their credibility in this case, wouldn't it?
There's no gouging here, everybody's got choices. On this first DVD release, if you read the back of the box (ie: no purchase necessary) you are alerted to the fact that there's more to buy in November. I knew right away I'd be owning both, and even jumped up and down a little in the store. If you're not inclined to read the box before purchasing, you give up the right to bitch about buying too many versions.
What may disappoint me is if the 4-DVD set includes not only the extended release, but the theatrical as well. Then I *might* feel I'd wasted some money, except for the fact that I have it *now* too. NOW is a very important time for me, as I live most of my life there.:)
Because, IMHO, Peter Jackson and others who would profit from this deserve to get stinking rich for what has been accomplished here. And if, later on, he wants to make a second special edition that's *4* hours long I'll buy that one too.
What if you need to make a change for some reason? You have to reburn the CD. With a floppy you can edit on the fly.
I totally agree, I'll always want a floppy drive or at least something that is re-writable when the computer is operating at a basic (ie DOS) level. I've been in situations where I've had to modify my standard boot floppy to get proper results on someone else's machine. Relying on a CD I'd have been screwed.
You can leave javascript enabled, and you can still go back without triggering the attack script if you do the following:
The itty-bitty down-arrow to the right of the back button opens a brief session history. Select the second entry from the top, and you are 'back'. The script is not triggered. This also works great on annoying pages that don't let you go back. Note: you would normally select the top entry to go back one page, but not with this exploit, so I guess just watch for the error page and remember to hit the second one down.
Train yourself to do this and you're ok. You'll even find that you actually *use* the feature to skip back multiple pages rather than clicking several 'backs' in a row...
The scary part is that most people wont be aware of this. I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get it to run deltree to see if that would work, but the command needs backslashes in the path argument, and of course they're being stripped out. Nothing I've tried has worked, and I'm hoping that it's just impossible.
Re:Poorly written summary of a poorly titled artic
on
No More Rebooting?
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
It seems to me that we're not understanding how this could be set up.. Why not have this as a device in your machine, that has an interface to the BIOS, where the user can set/format the unit to fool an OS into treating this nv memory-space as a fat32 or ext2 disk? You go into the BIOS, flush out the nvramdisk and 'reformat' and you are ready to re-install your OS should that become necessary. The rest of the time it runs as a really fast 'C:'... There's no need to replace normal RAM as your actual main memory during operation. Windows need not be aware of what is actually happening, you just boot/use faster, that's all.
Yep, me too, running Windows with no virus scanner, except maybe once a year just to make sure. It's always clean. Virus scanners use resources that I could be using on other things. Read before you click, know your file extensions, and think a bit about what you're putting in your computer, and you too may shrug off the performance ball-and-chain of virus scanners. I would expect that the statistic of/.'ers who *need* virus scanners is much lower than the almost-100% suggested.
As for the average PC-user, I feel sorry for them. They need virus scanners, but don't know how to use them correctly. I work with average users everyday, installing cable internet in their homes, installing a NIC in their machine if necessary, and fixing up various problems if I have time. I observed Norton Anti-Virus fail horribly one day:
When I got to the customer's home she informed me that her computer had the SirCam email doo-dad. She knew because she'd questioned the email she'd gotten from a friend, who had discovered the infection and warned her (too late) about it. I had already researched this one as my girlfriend had recently fallen prey to it (*sigh*), and knew what had to be done to remove it properly. But I noticed Norton sitting smugly in the systray and decided to put it to the test. I ran Liveupdate and made sure it had the latest dat files, did the scan and lo and behold, it found SirCam. So now what? The user is prompted to Clean, Delete, Quarantine or Ignore. Clean failed. I knew that Delete or Quarantine were bad because of how this worm hides, (if you simply delete/move the file, Windows is no longer able to run any.exe files) so what the fuck?? How is the average user supposed to realize that they should immediately go look up the named virus in the online databases and figure out what to do from there? I had expected Norton to have the capability of changing the registry as part of the proper fix, or at least to advise that there was a removal tool available on their website. Nope.
So, the advanced user doesn't need virus protection, and to use virus protection properly you need to be an advanced user. Ummm, yeah...
I have to agree, my girlfriend would be way turned on to be in such a room. She gets all slippery every time I do something geekish. They are all over the place you know, you just have to get out more.
I've worked for two cable companies, installing cable modems and offering instruction in customers' homes. Both companies like to charge for additional TV outlets, and both mind when you are found to have splitters that you shouldn't have.
Both charge for additional IP adresses also, but don't seem to mind when you are running some type of gateway configuration. The one I'm currently with even has instructions on their support web site for customers that want to hook up two computers, offering various methods, such as the standard "get a $50 hub and subscribe to another IP" method. Another method they give is to install a 2nd ethernet card in the main computer, connect via crossover to the other, and run Wingate or Sygate, or have Win98se or higher using Internet Connection Sharing. We don't get commissions for selling IP adresses, because we don't really want to be involved with people's home networks. It's almost as though these additional IPs are supported grudgingly. Too much tech support is needed when these networks (mostly windoze driven) fail to work properly, and if we set it up for them, they expect us to be responsible for it. So we don't do that. If they mention that they want to hook up two computers I can give them advice on how to do it (or make a deal to come back later and do it on my own time) but the company does not do any more than give advice. Neither do I, because I don't want the hassle of them calling me all the time to find out why it isn't working. Remember, most of these people are running Windows.
Our involvement with them is to get them on the Internet, period. We'd rather focus on making sure the connection to their home is good and solid, that their cable modem is functioning properly, and that their email and news is being delivered. Too many man-hours are lost if we are constantly servicing and policing networks. If I'm hooking up a university student in a dorm for example, and notice Cat-5 everywhere, running through walls to adjacent rooms, what am I supposed to say? The truth is easy enough, they obviously know what they're doing so I let them know the cost if they want to get the extra IPs, and mention the drawbacks of the free methods. Online games for example, can have problems with you hosting from such a configuration. Some apps wont run properly when used concurrently on different machines that are all using one real IP.
None of that should be my problem. It *is* theft of service, yes. But it is good customer service to allow it and hope that they are not getting too carried away with it. We have competition from DSL here (which really isn't serious competition but it's there) and have to make sure they like us better. The first company I worked for charged for bandwidth past a certain amount, and most people didn't like that, but put up with it. Where I am now we don't have that, and many customers have expressed appreciation for that fact, so it's obvious we won't be charging for bandwidth any time soon. As long as we keep the network going fast enough it shouldn't matter.
As for 802.11b, that's a bit scary since it increases the amount one could share regardless of whether in a dorm, apartment, or house. I think we should probably care about this issue, it potentially impacts my job directly. As for wired "free" networks, they are more limiting in the amount of sharing that can go on and are probably not worth worrying about. So basically, we as a whole have not been thinking about it, as far as I know.
Slashdot Mirror
I think someone needs to get a sense of humour.
Oops, forgot line breaks :(
I don't know HTML
Can't edit my posts
No embarrassment
You were most quick to come back
With a nice haiku
Not claiming to be perpetual motion?
>> "...can run coast to coast without ever relying on the battery being charged from an outside source."
Well, coast to coast is a finite distance, so no claim of perpetual motion is made here.
and
>> "The very essence of the technology to be demonstrated is the capability to keep the batteries "topped up" at all times with the "on board" device invented by Carl B. Tilley."
Yes, and we're talking about batteries here, that will inevitably break down and cease to function, given enough time and use.
and most importantly
>> " In fact, as the demonstration will prove, at the end of the allotted time period the battery bank will still register a FULL CHARGE condition!"
And after enough use, that won't work anymore. Perpetual motion is not implied anywhere in the various writings you can find about this.
Do you mean you're actually running the signal THROUGH the Beta, or playing the movie on the Beta? Just to see if we're on the same page here, I mean that basically you plugging the Beta in between two lengths of coaxial going from VHS1 to VHS2.
If that IS what you mean and you're getting the signal, I find that fascinating because technically it shouldn't happen. (Something to do with the automatic gain happening at a different time on the Beta to the VHS. Can't remember the technicalities.)
Yes, I've tried it both ways, the protection is in the video signal itself, and affects my modern VHS the same way whether it's
a) Raw from the source (source is RCA type connection)
b) Taped to beta and then played to the VHS
c) Piped through the beta live via coax or RCA
My Sony VHS and my capture cards respond to the signal somewhat less when it's coming from the beta on tape, but they still respond enough to wreck a recording. When the signal is simply piped through, it's fully intact and fully ugly.
Perhaps I have an anomoly of some sort in my setup?
Hang on to those Beta VCR's folks. I have. Why? They make EXCEPTIONAL Macrovision filters. Run the signal through the Beta, voila, no Macrovision.
I dunno, might depend on what you have. I've got 3 betas, and while they can record and playback a macro'ed movie just fine, the signal coming through the machine (or from the beta tape) has the signal in it still, and triggers my VHS/capture card to disrupt the picture.
What about industry? Certainly you shouldn't be excepted to adhere to the contract if you work for Advance Micro Devices making motherboards and your invention has to do with a way to improve lipstick - your employer should have NO claim to your invention since it in no way had anything whatsoever to do with your employment or even your employers industry.
Further, what if you wrote a book and published it? Say a mystery novel...
An excellent point there. DSC's claims seem to reflect the type of thinking you are illustrating here, and the book-writing angle is a great example that could work against them for real. If it can be shown that any of their employees, who had also signed such agreements, have ever in fact had ideas and personally published some totally unrelated novel/writing and NOT been sued by the company, this would erode their credibility in this case, wouldn't it?
There's no gouging here, everybody's got choices. On this first DVD release, if you read the back of the box (ie: no purchase necessary) you are alerted to the fact that there's more to buy in November. I knew right away I'd be owning both, and even jumped up and down a little in the store. If you're not inclined to read the box before purchasing, you give up the right to bitch about buying too many versions.
What may disappoint me is if the 4-DVD set includes not only the extended release, but the theatrical as well. Then I *might* feel I'd wasted some money, except for the fact that I have it *now* too. NOW is a very important time for me, as I live most of my life there.
Because, IMHO, Peter Jackson and others who would profit from this deserve to get stinking rich for what has been accomplished here. And if, later on, he wants to make a second special edition that's *4* hours long I'll buy that one too.
What if you need to make a change for some reason? You have to reburn the CD. With a floppy you can edit on the fly.
I totally agree, I'll always want a floppy drive or at least something that is re-writable when the computer is operating at a basic (ie DOS) level. I've been in situations where I've had to modify my standard boot floppy to get proper results on someone else's machine. Relying on a CD I'd have been screwed.
The path is wrong, that's all. In win98 it's \windows\winmine.exe Plus, make sure minesweeper is installed. Remember, he only tested it on 2k..
You can leave javascript enabled, and you can still go back without triggering the attack script if you do the following:
The itty-bitty down-arrow to the right of the back button opens a brief session history. Select the second entry from the top, and you are 'back'. The script is not triggered. This also works great on annoying pages that don't let you go back. Note: you would normally select the top entry to go back one page, but not with this exploit, so I guess just watch for the error page and remember to hit the second one down.
Train yourself to do this and you're ok. You'll even find that you actually *use* the feature to skip back multiple pages rather than clicking several 'backs' in a row...
The scary part is that most people wont be aware of this. I've been trying (unsuccessfully) to get it to run deltree to see if that would work, but the command needs backslashes in the path argument, and of course they're being stripped out. Nothing I've tried has worked, and I'm hoping that it's just impossible.
It seems to me that we're not understanding how this could be set up.. Why not have this as a device in your machine, that has an interface to the BIOS, where the user can set/format the unit to fool an OS into treating this nv memory-space as a fat32 or ext2 disk? You go into the BIOS, flush out the nvramdisk and 'reformat' and you are ready to re-install your OS should that become necessary. The rest of the time it runs as a really fast 'C:'... There's no need to replace normal RAM as your actual main memory during operation. Windows need not be aware of what is actually happening, you just boot/use faster, that's all.
Yep, me too, running Windows with no virus scanner, except maybe once a year just to make sure. It's always clean. Virus scanners use resources that I could be using on other things. Read before you click, know your file extensions, and think a bit about what you're putting in your computer, and you too may shrug off the performance ball-and-chain of virus scanners. I would expect that the statistic of /.'ers who *need* virus scanners is much lower than the almost-100% suggested.
.exe files) so what the fuck?? How is the average user supposed to realize that they should immediately go look up the named virus in the online databases and figure out what to do from there? I had expected Norton to have the capability of changing the registry as part of the proper fix, or at least to advise that there was a removal tool available on their website. Nope.
As for the average PC-user, I feel sorry for them. They need virus scanners, but don't know how to use them correctly. I work with average users everyday, installing cable internet in their homes, installing a NIC in their machine if necessary, and fixing up various problems if I have time. I observed Norton Anti-Virus fail horribly one day:
When I got to the customer's home she informed me that her computer had the SirCam email doo-dad. She knew because she'd questioned the email she'd gotten from a friend, who had discovered the infection and warned her (too late) about it. I had already researched this one as my girlfriend had recently fallen prey to it (*sigh*), and knew what had to be done to remove it properly. But I noticed Norton sitting smugly in the systray and decided to put it to the test. I ran Liveupdate and made sure it had the latest dat files, did the scan and lo and behold, it found SirCam. So now what? The user is prompted to Clean, Delete, Quarantine or Ignore. Clean failed. I knew that Delete or Quarantine were bad because of how this worm hides, (if you simply delete/move the file, Windows is no longer able to run any
So, the advanced user doesn't need virus protection, and to use virus protection properly you need to be an advanced user. Ummm, yeah...
This means that Microsoft has been harbouring terrorists. George W therefore has permission to bomb Redmond!
I have to agree, my girlfriend would be way turned on to be in such a room. She gets all slippery every time I do something geekish. They are all over the place you know, you just have to get out more.
I've worked for two cable companies, installing cable modems and offering instruction in customers' homes. Both companies like to charge for additional TV outlets, and both mind when you are found to have splitters that you shouldn't have.
Both charge for additional IP adresses also, but don't seem to mind when you are running some type of gateway configuration. The one I'm currently with even has instructions on their support web site for customers that want to hook up two computers, offering various methods, such as the standard "get a $50 hub and subscribe to another IP" method. Another method they give is to install a 2nd ethernet card in the main computer, connect via crossover to the other, and run Wingate or Sygate, or have Win98se or higher using Internet Connection Sharing. We don't get commissions for selling IP adresses, because we don't really want to be involved with people's home networks. It's almost as though these additional IPs are supported grudgingly. Too much tech support is needed when these networks (mostly windoze driven) fail to work properly, and if we set it up for them, they expect us to be responsible for it. So we don't do that. If they mention that they want to hook up two computers I can give them advice on how to do it (or make a deal to come back later and do it on my own time) but the company does not do any more than give advice. Neither do I, because I don't want the hassle of them calling me all the time to find out why it isn't working. Remember, most of these people are running Windows.
Our involvement with them is to get them on the Internet, period. We'd rather focus on making sure the connection to their home is good and solid, that their cable modem is functioning properly, and that their email and news is being delivered. Too many man-hours are lost if we are constantly servicing and policing networks. If I'm hooking up a university student in a dorm for example, and notice Cat-5 everywhere, running through walls to adjacent rooms, what am I supposed to say? The truth is easy enough, they obviously know what they're doing so I let them know the cost if they want to get the extra IPs, and mention the drawbacks of the free methods. Online games for example, can have problems with you hosting from such a configuration. Some apps wont run properly when used concurrently on different machines that are all using one real IP.
None of that should be my problem. It *is* theft of service, yes. But it is good customer service to allow it and hope that they are not getting too carried away with it. We have competition from DSL here (which really isn't serious competition but it's there) and have to make sure they like us better. The first company I worked for charged for bandwidth past a certain amount, and most people didn't like that, but put up with it. Where I am now we don't have that, and many customers have expressed appreciation for that fact, so it's obvious we won't be charging for bandwidth any time soon. As long as we keep the network going fast enough it shouldn't matter.
As for 802.11b, that's a bit scary since it increases the amount one could share regardless of whether in a dorm, apartment, or house. I think we should probably care about this issue, it potentially impacts my job directly. As for wired "free" networks, they are more limiting in the amount of sharing that can go on and are probably not worth worrying about. So basically, we as a whole have not been thinking about it, as far as I know.
Please cc replies to feanturi23@hotmail.com