I really would have expected more than 62% to vote for the acquisition. Having 38% abstain or vote against it... I will be surprised if some of the nay-sayers didn't file a lawsuit to prevent it from happening.
why would you want return audio via HDMI to your receiver?
Because your TV has more HDMI ports available, or they are easier to access. Or you want the TV to be able to delay the audio enough for the video to catch up. Or the TV does better processing of video than the TV does. And so forth.
HDCP can support DRM but as far as I am aware no one has forced that
I think you are very confused about your terms -- HDCP is DRM -- it's encryption, it's negotiated, and if there's the slightest thing wrong, there will be no signal. (Or there will be a downgraded -- 480p, stereo audio -- signal instead.) And HDCP is certainly required -- try to watch an HD movie or rental on an AppleTV with a non-HDCP-compliant display over HDMI. And while the PS3 currently allows you to watch HD (1080i) over component, Sony has not promised to continue that. And if you want 1080p, you have to use HDMI, and the HDCP is enforced there. DirecTV has enforced HDCP requirements with some of their HD programming at times as well.
And Borland's history with uSoft is a perfect example of why such pacts are put into place.
The "Audio Return Channel" should allow that -- the normal HDCP negotiation can go on. Hopefully, this will let you plug HDMI devices into your TV, and have the receiver be able to handle the audio.
That'll require a new TV and a new receiver of course. sigh
But the main article is fairly wrong. The Audio Return channel doesn't require a different cable, and the higher resolutions and 3D will both work over the high-bandwidth version. The ethernet options will be different cables, as will the automotive, so there will be quite a few new cables, but I don't think that's particularly confusing. (That's normal HDMI; HDMI plus ethernet; high-speed HDMI; high-speed HDMI plus ethernet; and automotive HDMI.)
dvice.com has some analysis and the press release.
The Audio Return thing will allow your display to send audio to your receiver, instead of using a second audio (e.g. optical or coaxial) cable. Why that wasn't there from the beginning is beyond me, since the connection was already bidirectional (to negotiate DRM).
The costs incurred per track do not affect the "supply" -- you seem to have confused "infinite supply" with "free for everyone."
I never said demand was infinite; what I said was that using terms "supply and demand" to justify cost for electronic copies is not accurate. Now, using demand to justify it is another matter, and I'll grant that. But saying that you need to raise prices due to "supply and demand" is a lie.
In demand tunes should be higher-priced due to supply and demand.
You know, the thing that always bugs me when someone says that is... the supply is essentially infinite there. There is no manfacturing limitation of the bits; they're just copied as required, and the demand level doesn't factor into it.
Ah, I see, a communications failure -- see, most people don't call it a "null [...] implementation," when it actually does work. Work that is quite demonstrable.
I shall add this new, unique to trolls, definition of "null implementation" to my dictionary.
Untrue. What fsync() doesn't do is tell the hard drive to write it to the platter, so the data can be lost in the event of a failure between the fsync() and when the drive actually flushes it. This is spelled out in the man page for fsync on Mac OS X.
You can verify this by using the fs_usage command to see what is going on -- when the fsync is called, data are indeed written to disk.
For most people, if their iPod is stolen, they've got much bigger problems than having someone look at an email address.
Personal photos and contact lists, for example, are a much bigger issue.
The email addresses have always been in clear-text. Even in the encrypted song files.
Seriously, am I the only person in the entire world who runs strings or emacs on binary files just to see what might be in them?
Another poster provided information that contradicted me, so I am pointing out that I am wrong 8-).
Dinosaurs aren't extinct. They've just learned to hide in the trees.