2008 posts • joined Wednesday 10th June 2009 16:31 GMT
Re: The Circle of Strife
Until the defectors find Xubuntu, Mint, or some other more-traditional distro and settle back down...
IIRC, military types end-run around the problem by simply not using it. Military communications tend to use their own proprietary devices.
But back to the civilian world, you have a classic power struggle here. Both users and developers want control over the phone, and Google's caught in the middle. If they favor the users too much, devs won't feel comfortable and will probably defect to Apple, who already has an established base that could convince devs to take the plunge...if Google didn't slant things back in their favor. So basically, if you want their app, you have to play by their rules or they won't provide. It's like an auto garage. If you want them to handle your car, you have to agree to their terms, even though it's your car.
At least it's honest.
AMD knows the price they're quoting will probably only be possible on sites like Newegg. Best Buy and the other B&Ms will mark it up to allow for taxes and instant gratification. It's the tradeoff these days.
If it has to be an L...
If "Key Lime Pie" becomes Android 6, then I wouldn't be surprised to see "Lemon Meringue Pie" to stand alongside as Android 7.
Another possibility for Android 6 is Klondike, the brand name for another ice cream confectionery. That said, I think Android tries to avoid brand names.
Re: Web Interfaces
First thing you'll be asked is "What is REBOL?" Second thing you'll be asked is, "Where's the mouse pointer?" Remember that this is 2012. Today's young generation are probably unfamiliar with command lines and may even feel that "DOS is for dinosaurs". That said, a properly-done web interface is more flexible, allowing for drop-down lists and the like. It can even include an embedded CLI box...just in case, allowing the best of both worlds.
Re: Just print more....
That would inflate the currency, reducing its value. One factor that gives a currency value is scarcity. Gold is valuable partly because it's relatively scarce (the other big reason is because it's also in high demand). That's why the creators put a cap on that number: to enforce scarcity.
Re: Two things.
You're talking BIOS encryption which as mentioned before may not have been available (depends on the laptop, and if it isn't, good luck getting money out of NASA's tightened budget for a new one). I was talking drive encryption (like a secure disk-on-module) can be transparent to the OS and therefore useable even on older laptops.
Second, give me about a minute with the laptop and I can have it thrashing for as long as needed (think something like a defrag program). Since it's automatic but keeps the HD moving, it never idles long enough to lock. As there are ways to keep the laptop from going to sleep once the lid's closed. And physical access can be difficult if something like a laptop has to be able to go OUTSIDE (which is usually why laptops are being used; otherwise, a physically-locked-down remote workstation would be preferable).
As for hiring someone better, who's got the budget for someone better?
Even among "what you need", there can be choices. I mean, perhaps you always bought Brand X "WhatYouNeed", but were you aware there's also a Brand Y "WhatYouNeed"? Granted, this isn't usually the case, but every so often I see an ad for something that I wasn't aware about before and I think, "Hmm, lemme check this out..." so I start doing some digging. Sometimes, it doesn't hurt to satisfy your little curiosities.
What happens when you have more than one?
Then you have to make sure you keep the remotes identified, or you'll find the remote you're pressing is actually controlling the PS3 upstairs. Like I said, Bluetooth isn't without its faults. And having two PS3s is actually within the realm of reality, depending on the household. Now, if you extend this to TVs in general, it starts getting messy, especially if you have more than one of the same brand of TV both within radio range. I start thinking about those jokes about garage doors being opened by strange things...
Until the Metro apps start coming in...
Now, Office probably got the OK to stay desktop because it was already in development, but how much longer do you think Microsoft will continue "traditional" development to continue unhindered? Perhaps at some point there will be a push to go Metro, and then we'll REALLY see some fireworks, since for many it'll become a "rock and a hard place" problem. And if it happens to be a business-critical app that doesn't run anywhere else, well...
The reason the PS3 remote works the way it does is because it isn't infrared. It's in fact a BLUETOOTH device, which has hurdles of its own. Infrared is mostly used because it's cheap, simple, ubiquitous, and generally needs no fiddling around. Pop in the batteries, aim, and go. And while IR remote range varies, most have a decent cone of influence when you press the button. Generally, if you're about 4-5 meters from the set and aim in its general direction, you'll get results. And since the IR receivers on most TVs are off to one side, you can usually get a click in even if the center of the screen is blocked. And, if all else fails, you can always just stand up and walk over (which, in the case of the kid and the horror movie, you'll want to do anyway).
Re: Two things I hate.
Well, they're not getting anything from me NOW since that's my base requirement: support the AVC videos on my network, or no deal.
Two things I hate.
First, like other have said, they don't make things simple enough. If you're going to have a bunch of inputs, why not make it so we can reach EACH ONE in just one press?
Second, all this talk of ipTV seems to ignore one BIG source of "ipTV": home networks! With all this talk of networked TV, it's hard to find a TV (or even a set-top box) that actually complies with the DLNA standard for home-networked multimedia. Kinda makes a MyBook Live useless without something to play off it. Apart from WD TV, nothing seems to have enough capability (not even Sony boxes, which CLAIM to be DLNA-compliant, but then you read the footnotes and realize they can't do AVC video over the network--(censored)). About the most ubiquitous DLNA-capable devices out there are the gaming consoles (the 360 and PS3 normally, but a Wii can be hacked to do it--sort of), but their interfaces and controls are a hunk of junk. No playlists, no loop support, and navigation is...my PHONE does a better job at handling the files.
Don't just make the TVs simpler, make them better suited for home media. THEN we'll talk.
I've had the same thought myself as I myself consider a jump, as my Win7 desktop gets a bit sluggish after over a year of use. Most of my current windows experience I can now duplicate in Linux (new games are the holdout), so I'm waiting on 12.04 to make the jump, but my current choice is Xubuntu, which will combine Ubuntu's strong backing with the slimmer, simpler XFCE.
First, hard drives with built-in encryption are a bit new and have their quirks (for example, finding a 2.5" inch that fit a laptop was tricky because you couldn't use any ordinary 2.5" HD in it--you needed to cram a 1.6" drive and the encryption chips into a 2.5" form factor. That means compromises that may or may not be acceptable for the job in question.
Second, secure devices are expensive, and government budgets are getting tighter and tighter. Less spending and more security are clashing at this point.
Plus no solution on the market at the moment can completely alleviate the possibility of stealing the device "hot": while it is still running (kinda like sneaking in during those times when the front door is legitimately open).
By serving from a tiny webserver built into the box, it becomes easy to administer it no matter what platform you use. That's also why web servers are the interface of choice for many home servers (both software and hardware). Just point to its address and go. Now, granted this poses some security concerns, but for a tinker toy like the NinjaBox, barring something absolutely outrageous, the implications are probably too small to be of any consequence.
Re: Re: Re: Yay
Because it doesn't render at *1920*x1080. The Xenos's GPU doesn't use the same box of tricks the RSX does in being able to resize horizontally. If you study the PS3 library, you'll note that of all the games that actually render at 1080p, almost none of them actually pull off 1920x1080. And even then, compromises are made such as reduced graphics assets or smaller render areas (think sports games with limited stadium/court sizes). Wipeout HD actually dynamically downscales the horizontal resolution as you play to ensure 60fps.
Re: Death to DRM
Hold the phone on that. Some of the newer DRM schemes don't seem to have been broken wide open yet. After all, I've yet to hear Microsoft complaining about someone breaking their Windows Media encryption, nor Apple with their FairPlay scheme (all the "crackers" I've seen depend on having legal access to the file at least once, so they don't really count as breaking the scheme). As for BluRay, BD+'s ability to keep updating means it's still an ongoing arms race.
Re: While its not a panacea...
It may have been an older laptop that didn't have support, and NASA's budget is among the ones being tightened, so they may fire back, "How are we supposed to replace them for more secure ones without the money to requisition them?"
...no matter how well you guard access, once SOMEONE has access to it, they may think they'll forget it later on when they'll need it again. And since high-security computers are likely to be air-gapped, no remote connection is possible, so they'll copy the data (even if they have to do it MANUALLY or BY ROTE--kinda hard to safeguard against biological memory). Obfuscating the codes so no one sees them won't work if the person involved is the one who actually has to handle the codes, and then we get back to where we started.
To turn an old phrase for a new purpose, ask yourself, "How do you safeguard a secret code against the code writer?"
Re: Quad core is more power efficient
That's assuming that the voltages scale down similarly, which I don't believe is quite the case. At 50% frequency, you can operate at a lower voltage, yes, but I don't think the reduction is all that great (it's definitely anywhere near half). Furthermore, using four cores depends on a task that can be allocated to four cores. In the mobile world, there aren't as many things that have to be juggled at once, plus whatever things needs to be run may not be multithreaded, leaving the extra cores unused. At least with two cores, it's easy enough for the OS to take one and an application to take another and manage things from there. Just as it's easy enough to juggle two balls. But add more cores (more balls) and juggling them starts to get tricky.
Re: Quantum Computing will not be like we see it now
That last paragraph's an interesting thought, and if Quantum Computing really becomes ubiquitous, it may reach the level you state. However, since QC is in its infancy and doesn't really involve a lot of existing existing tech, things are moving slowly. I don't think it'll reach consumer level for a while. I give it about 20 years or so to reach that level barring government intervention.
Re: So we have come full circle back to Ricochet?
There was probably more to it than that. A lot of the work seems to be working around the problem of crosstalk. Having a lot of small cells is only good if the small cells don't cross signals with each other. Your idea at the time was probably ahead of its time because the logic needed wasn't robust enough. Thanks in part to Moore's Law, we seem to have crossed the threshold of practicality.
This Small Cell idea sounds interesting, especially once you think INSIDE the boxes, as in big boxes where traditional cell signals have trouble. A Small Cell inside a big box store would probably relieve a few headaches. Barring the presence of a hotspot, I've historically had problems using cell phones within these types of stores. I can picture Walmart (who runs an MVNO off T-Mobile) perhaps trying something like that.
Re: Too much faith in the gatekeeper
You assume the gatekeeper is an outside firm. Think the other way around. What if the domain registrars *are the banks themselves*? Banks would have a vested interest in vetting their own domain since it's a matter of trust. Then it becomes like a country club with limited admission: only genuine banks with proper financial credentials and backing (and perhaps an actual brick-and-mortar presence) admitted. If they police from within, they can check up on all entries and weed out the sleazy entries. Also, since trademarks are involved, they can institute a "no resale/non-transferrable" clause in the agreement. Maybe also insist on a DNSSEC requirement before issuance.
Someone's been reading Smith lately...
I'm surprised Arisia wasn't contacted for discussion...but they probably already knew, and you know how they are. Now if we could just wrap our heads around the idea of neutralizing inertia...
Re: And yet even more bollocks
It's the movie producers.
"Free" movies seem to give them nightmares. They'll pull out every DRM trick in the book, including watermarking ("So we know you're the one who torrented that movie, Mr. Smith..."). Personally, I think they'd rather shut the doors than let them loose. Don't like it, well BOO HOO no more movies for you (and we'll lock up all the OLD movies, too).
Not so bogus when you realize most of the documents that scare the business types are SCRIPT-LADEN...and scripts are the one thing the free alternatives CAN'T convert easily because VBA has so many Windows nuances and the alternatives are so different that things get lost in translation. Furthermore, these documents frequently have to go back to the Office world, so the general rule is "don't touch". Kind of hard to do when you need to RUN the macros on a machine with no Office license.
Here's an example. You want to use a free office program, but a government agency you regularly contact uses as its document template a script-laden Office document. As this is for legal compliance, you HAVE to use it AND its internal functions. So you have a decision to make. Do you plunk down for a proper hand conversion (as the scripts within are complicated) or plunk down for Excel and everything that may be attached?
"Windows has been dead for a long time. Only businesses upgrade and only businesses with a critical need to upgrade. Many home users and businesses are running wXP (if they run the w at all), and very few home users have ever paid for the thing. Its not even particularly useful anymore. Once upon a time w was a handy, if buggy, app loader and that was pretty much it. Nowadays it doesnt really offer anything. GUIs are a dime a dozen and many apps are back to carrying their own around with them."
If Windows is so dead, why is it STILL the predominant platform for games? And no, not even consoles come close to the output the PC gaming industry has produced. Even if you go JUST from the time the XBox 360 first came out in November of '05, the number of PC games (including QUALITY games) easily trumps the output of any console on the market today. And while plenty of developers jump to consoles, many also jump BACK (Alan Wake is a very recent example--originally only for the 360). Even INDIE gamers gravitate toward Windows despite there already existing a competing platform, supposedly with comparable capabilities and a lower price tag on both ends (development and actual gameplay). I wonder why that's so...
Re: Re: Riiight and what about...
If the idea of a registered .bank takes off, then any web browser will detect an address switch like that and probably wouldn't highlight the address as a banking site as such (hint, hint: if it isn't recognized as a banking site, it isn't--barring some whitelist collapse, only genuine banks will have .bank addresses). And since .bank sites will be screened prior to approval, and since the safeguards already in place (SSL/TLS and the like) will still be there, it would be another layer.
So how would you go about fooling both the user and the web browser without hacking an actual bank site?
Re: Re: Linux was, is and remains a toy
Thing is, Linux is on the HIGH end (HPC and the like) and on the LOW end (glorified web browsers and the like).
The problem exists in the MIDDLE (workstations that do actual work because they run database work, coding, or business graphics; home computers that do serious stuff like games and video editing and processing). And that's where Linux is falling flat. They need to be able to draw BOTH the power use (the workstation types) AND the skilled amateur (the gamer/video editor) without stepping on the other's toes. Power users need to be able to do all sorts of things so need breadth of function, while amateurs would like to just do what they want to do: ease of use. Thing is, the Linux community (because of its user base) leans too strongly in favor of the power user. There doesn't seem to be much effort into making it easier for the average user to run Linux instead of Windows. Now, are there other obstacles involved (like a constantly moving target--can you make a DirectX 11 game run on OpenGL, for example)? Sure, but they're likely secondary to the main issue.
Re: US military is the single largest user of oil in the world.
Why do you think the DoD has such an interest in synthetic petrol? It would put an immense relief in their logistics. This is especially true of the Navy, who not only have lots of jets on their aircraft carriers that all need fuel that's rather hard to come by in the middle of the ocean, but also a potential tap to use to produce more fuel for those jets (the reactors already on board said carriers).
They did. Trouble is, THAT one already expired, IIRC, so it's fair game.
Things that are TOO obvious are either unpatentable or were patented so long ago that they no longer apply.
Re: Weaponised bags
Even simpler than that. Nice heavy hardcover book inside the bag (it's the book you were reading on the flight, even). Now, you try to sneak up on me, and I react by swinging the bag with said book in it. Now tell me that bag wasn't a weapon then. Same way with a sock. It isn't much of a weapon...then you stuff it with a half-brick.
Not so much infinite...
...as abundant, provided you find abundant resources elsewhere to help you produce synthetic hydrocarbons. There's already research being conducted into making synthetic fuel (and it's serious research being done by such organizations as the US Department of Defense, who sees homegrown fuel as a step towards logistic security--A Good Thing for their type; more specifically, the Navy already uses reactors on most of their carriers, why not give them an extra job to do that can also help reduce the need to take on jet fuel every so often).
All you really need is a better way of producing thermal or electrical energy. We already have a good bridge to it in modern nuclear reactors (if we can just get past the scare of nuclear excursions--Gen IV reactors take those potentials into consideration, and some designs are designed to prevent runaway reactions), and if we can just wrap our heads around finding a commercially-viable fusion reactor...
Think the KISS principle.
The stickers exist precisely because what you describe is "geekspeak" to the average person. Microsoft could scream at people to "check the specs" 'til they're blue but for most people specs are eyeglasses. They couldn't distinguish a Core from a processor or RAM from a ream.
So you go back to the ol' "Keep it Simple, Stupid!" principle. So you have the sticker. The Windows 7 sticker program actually got it right: plain and simple, if the box has the sticker, you're good. End of. And if a computer box has a sticker but really can't do it, that's Breach of Contract--send in the lawyers! The only thing simpler than "If you see it, it works" would be "It just works", and you can't get any simpler without Apple's level of hardware control to ensure "It just works".
Unfortunately, the way Microsoft is transitioning (it feels necessarily) to ARM makes for a transition that can't help but be complicated.
Apple's transition wasn't as radical.
Thing is, while Apple transitioned architectures (TWICE--remember the 68K->PPC transition?) they didn't throw out their familiar UI in the process. Sure, there were adjustments and gradual evolution along the way, but most anyone who's seen a Mac desktop--ANY Mac desktop--would recognize one when they saw it. With the familiar UI intact, Apple's transition team concentrated behind the scenes with compatibility layers and so on. Plus, this was a strictly desktop affair, so energy efficiency wasn't an issue.
Microsoft's transition with Windows 8 is much more radical. You're combining the architecture change of Mac OS X with the UI transition of Windows 95. Microsoft is essentially trying to cold-turkey what they feel is a necessary transition away from a model not as well suited to tablets (and that's another thing: compatibility is going to be a BIG issue because of an INTENTIONAL lack of a compatibility layer--the article itself states this is again because of the tablet issue--power efficiency now has meaning).
Re: What is the brand worth?
For all the negative press techies put on the Windows name, in the eyes of the average Joe, it's either Windows or Mac when it comes to computers (because anything ending in an X that isn't a roman numeral doesn't have enough public exposure to count). Microsoft HAS to play the Windows card since it's the only card worth playing--familiarity. Any other card would play right into Apple's hands since they play familiarity, too...among other things.
Re: The mascots aren't the problem, and neither are the franchises
"Take New Super Mario Bros on the Wii at least - sure, it's got gimmicky controls (which quickly get tiresome). But the actual game is basically a remix of the NES Mario games, and whatever nostalgia I had for them having played them the first time around was insufficient to make me really want to play it all the way through. Super Mario 64, Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy show a good progression of new gameplay ideas to at least keep you engaged."
I won't knock SMG, it's a lot of fun, and unlike SMS, they tuned the difficulty curve just right to keep things from being too frustrating. But it's its own challenge.
As for the NSMB line, Nintendo has a lot of old-school fans (take a look at the hacks--RECENT hacks, I might add, for a game franchise that recently turned 25). Sometimes, there's no school like old school, and the returns they got on NSMB for the DS gave them the gumption to try it on the Wii. I personally find it a lot of fun because I grew up on the original, and while it has its own sense of variety, it keeps the 2D platforming core I grew to love.
Trick with the nets.
The objects being considered are traveling AT SPEED, more like a Marlin dashing through the ocean at 30kph or something like that. The point is, when something that fast hits your supposed trawling net, it has a distinct chance of having enough kinetic energy and inertia to punch through.
For the net to work, you'd need something designed to catch those kinds of objects. Which is why I thought a while back on several loose layers of kevlar: an idea which is already being used on the ground for shooting range backstop curtains (where they experience the kinds of projectiles they would encounter in space--small objects at speed). Kevlar mesh is designed to absorb kinetic energy, so that helps. Keeping them loose (or perhaps using a more-flexible armature) allows them to give and absorb more energy, and using layers means that even if it manages to penetrate one or two layers, each penetration knocks out more energy that may allow it to be caught by the next layer.
That's what I was noting.
Sure, an object at a speed of Mach 5 is dangerous, but how dangerous is it against ANOTHER object ALSO going at Mach 5...only much denser? It's like a Mini Cooper vs. a lorry, both at the same speed. It's gonna be messy for the missile.
As for the warhead, the projectile will not have a lot of cross section for an explosive force to apply, and it'll have all of the projectile's inertia to fight (and given its mass, there will be a LOT of it).
That was the idea.
It would be firing BACKWARDS. Meaning it would fire the junk backwards, slowing it down potentially to the point of de-orbit. Meanwhile, the reaction from the firing would work propel it FORWARD.
That being said, I don't think you could collect enough juice to fire the junk properly on pure energy. You'd need something close to the MJ range, which solar collection wouldn't provide in a timely manner.
Going back to the idea of a net, understood that most materials have trouble with high-speed impacts, but what about several somewhat loose layers of kevlar with a little bit of give in them so as to help absorb some of the kinetic energy? Besides vests, some shooting ranges use kevlar for shooting range backstop curtains, so there is some history to using it like a net for small objects at speed.
Re: Re: What's the Diff?
"Or, we could simply require that our LTE networks be built using appropriate, and suitable, spectrum that was not originally designed to be a guard band for GPS (by being restricted to infrequent, low-power signals at the earth level). No one is saying that LTE is a bad thing - just that those who wish to provide it should have to pay for appropriate frequencies, rather than trying to acquire inappropriate frequencies on the cheap and then finagling their use through legal means."
Having said that, I can see why LightSquared tried such a play. There is no market for spectrum. There is simply NO more spectrum available in the frequencies that would matter. Practically all of the usable spectrum is being held by cell providers who all have plans for it, so they're not selling. IOW, LightSquared's only hope was against a closed market was to disrupt it. Just didn't work out, in this case.
Re: What's the Diff?
First off, LTE is the Next Big Thing, so you're going to need PLENTY of coverage to get all those customers. That means there will be LOTS of powerful transmission towers, all of a terrestrial nature. Imagine yourself trying to listen to your cell phone in the middle of a death metal concert. (as a note, GPS signals from space are pretty damn faint once they're down on the ground) That's analogous to the level of interference you'd be facing.
Sat phones don't have those problems because they're (1) temporary, (2) sporadic, and (3) ALSO satellite-based, in contrast to the permanent, constant, and terrestrial system planned by LightSquared.
I may be wrong, but AFAIK a 2D HDTV doesn't have the intelligence to interpret a 3D signal so as to show only one side. So it comes out looking all messed up...if it's able to interpret the signal at all (if it gets a funny signal, it may reject display with an "incompatible signal" or the like). So if a 2D channel is commandeered to show 3D, it means people with 2D TVs can't use the channel.
No, I'm quite clear about it.
MPEG-LA has been threatening to sue Google over patents it claims covers VP8 (the fundamental codec for WebM), and Google refused to back down. Now, when a company refuses to back down from a patent claim, there are usually two reasons. 1) the patent claim is unfounded, or 2) you can fight back. When Google bought On2, it also got access to its patent pool, and since the complete list is not fully understood, there may be potential patents that could affect MPEG-LA's key codecs like AVC. IOW, Google may be refusing on grounds of (2): threatening to counter a patent claim WITH a patent claim and therefore starting a patent war. MPEG-LA would have more to lose in a patent war since Google has the resources to fight and doesn't have as much at stake as they do (Google isn't charging for the use of its patents; MPEG-LA is).. In addition, the US government is starting to nose into MPEG-LA's business over predatory patent practices. I suspect that's why you don't hear much from MPEG-LA about WebM these days.
As for the CCL, you may want to take a look at something significant. AFAIK, none of the companies listed in the CCL are also part of MPEG-LA. No crossover means there are distinct battle lines in this. Apple and Microsoft are part of MPEG-LA and stand to gain if they win. Small wonder they're not part of the CCL.
That's what you get...
...with a Patent & Trademark Office that's seriously short-staffed and under budget. In the grand scheme of the United States Executive Branch, the PTO isn't exactly high on the list of priorities.
So, how do you go about improving the system without any more money or staff to actually do the work? And don't say dissolve the office because there are still the legitimate physical design patents that have to be protected (or people won't invent for fear of copycats), as well as the trademarks and service marks that help companies identify themselves and prevent imitators.