It might surprises you, but don't trust "Monster Cable": you don't actually need a cable as thick as the charger of a Tesla car to carry a digital video signal.

Yes, most HDMI cable are stiff. No, that's not a requirement. Thiner and/or flatter, and more flexible HDMI cable to exist.

I was actually surprised that there are USB host connectors on this thing. I would have expected it to use bluetooth keyboard if any one needs one. (And I imagine it more used for none-keyboard tasks).

Nano wireless receivers for the occasionnal keyboard need, and other similar USB nano devices, might do the trick.

It might surprise the "Monster Cable crowd", but HDMI cables don't necessarily need to be thick enough to be able to carry 16A current.

In fact, I have a flat HDMI cable which very thin and flexible, enough so because it's a roll-up. And it works nicely this way. That's already a cable that won't induce much more drag than your old-school PS/2 cable.
(And there are ultra thin sub-2mm cables on the market too).

Once upon a time, mice use to be wired.

Before the era where everybody uses mouse that talk over bluetooth or some proprietary variation of Wireless USB and that uses batteries that die every once in a while, there used to be a period where USB and PS/2 cable dangling from the mouse to the main machine where the norm.

And nobody found it problematic back then.

It's not *completely* wrong.
In fact back then when it was discovered, it was experimentally proven to work within the parameters which were tested.

The reason it was used then and is still used now is that within this range of parameters, it still works. For everyday use, what newtonian predicts is within what is observed. That's a precise enough model.

What happened is that scientists started to consider much more extreme paramters range (higher energy, faster speed). At that point, newtonian physics breaks down. Does it mean that all the past results were wrong ? No it simply means that it's a model which is only works within a certain range of parameter (it's good for everyday use - you car) if you need to consider parameters outside this range (space ships, planets) you need a better model (general relativity, etc.)

Note:
- with Newtonian physics we speak about a physicis model. About a model that's used to approximate real-world events. This kind of things only get experimental proof (prediction fits the measured data or not). And will eventually get superseded by a better model which works better including for some corner cases or at higher range, smaller scales, etc. (String theory and such were born as a tentative at a better model than the dichotomy between relativity and quantum mechanics).

- with TFA: it's a bout a *mathematical proof* that 2 different models are really actually the same stuff just expressed in different ways. Take one model, tweak the equations, and you should obtain the other model. It doesn't speak about the quality of the models themselves, just the mathematical links between them.
(I fact, the quantum mechanics model has its limitation - what you call "wrong" and what I call "use it only within the range of value where it works the best.
QM works best at predict very small scale phenomena (particles, waves, etc.). QM completely sucks at being useful for anything at the other end of the scale: QM is a piece of shit for astronomy. And vice versa: relativity is good when you consider stars, useless when you consider particles. 2 models, each best at a different scale. And strings being a possible future model that could simultaneously work at both scales.). ...but usually, when you have a newer model, that is better experimentally, you usually also need to find a mathematical "link" between the two, an explanation why the old model used to work and only got contradicted in your experiment.
e.g.: take the relativity equations, and use them to compute the motion of your car - the level of energy and speed are so small, that all the "weird parts" of relativity can be approximated and rounded to 0, what remains ends up looking exactly like newtonian physics. Newtonions physicics are the same, simply with the relativity parts neglected, because they don't play any significant role at that scale.

Newtonian physics looks "kind of logic" because it's a model designed and tested and proven to predict a range of events (reasonable speed, low energy, human-size scale instead of particles, etc.) which happens to match what our monkey-brain have evolved to cope with.
(our ancestrors never had to think about nuclear bombs, supernovae, tunnel effect in electronics, etc.)
That's also why it got discovered first (we didn't first invent relativistic physics and the newtonian as handy simplified formula for some type of problems), because that's what was easiest for our monkey-brain to think about.

That's how science work. You don't base your decision on the mere principle that it more or less looks kind of logical.
(After all, it only looks "kind of logical" to your *brain*, which has spent the last few million years being optimized to help bipedal monkey survive together in the savanah. Actual science can some time feel "weird" and defy logic, because it defies the monkey-brain logic. - e.g.: the sum of all positive integer is a negative fraction)

You do thoroughly prove that by the numbers.
Yes, the double-slit experiment (where single particle behave like waves) strongly suggest that the uncertainty principle is at work (there's not *a signle photon* going through the slits, it's instead a function showing the distribution of the probabilities to pick it up at a certain place).
Now, we have mathematical proof that's indeed the case.

Science: the only place where it's actually correct to spend the time and mental ressource to formally prove that water *is* wet, and fire *does* burn. Because, along the way, you develop mathematical tools which come handy to do more advanced science.

Depends on what is the car's glove box.

- If it's something that Sweden doesn't give a damn about (some trivial object), well you could produce it for the court, and the court might be unhappy if you refuse to produce it and actively make obstruction (if the court offer to send a swedish cop to retrieve the object and you refuse to give the key your are kindly asked to provide them, you're the problem)

BUT

- If it's something that is illegal to export out of the country according to Swedish or EU law (weapon, endangered specie, nuclear fuel, etc.), then you CANNOT LEGALLY produce it to the court. What the court is asking you is illegal in Sweden. If you do it anyway, you're going to have big problems with a Swedish court.

Sorry, no. They can't. It's not legal in EU countries (and a few other europeans countries) to move private data around without consent.

Microsoft US cannot summon data in Ireland, without the explicit consent of the data owner. If they move the data anyway, they can be sued in Ireland for it.

While in a foreign country, you cannot commit a crime (under that country's law), even if it's your home country asking for you.
(Otherwise, spying would be entirely legal: because it was done on the order of the spy's home country).

But moving private data around without the owner's consent *IS* illegal in most EU and other european countries.

What the US court asks *IS* illegal in Ireland.
and the US court HAS NO power in Ireland. They are giving orders out of their jurisdiction.

Except forwarding that document is absolutely illegal in Ireland.

It works better if you substitute "slave" in that sentence: What if there is no slavery in that country ?! What if all humans are considered free?

No, but the data happens to be in Ireland, not in the US. Irish and EU law apply there. Nobody gives a damn shit about US there. Exporting the data IS illegal.

Again let's change the details. Let's take some Extremist / totalitarian government. The goverment asks one of its citizen to assassinate a target (that etremist / totalitarian regime has law that make this request legally binding and mandatory). The citizen then travels to US, and shoots the target: an innocent US citizen - who happen to have angered the government with some publication.
Is the assissnation legal, even if it was ordered according to the law of the extremist government? No, because that government has no jurisdiction in the US. In the US, US-law apply, and you are not allowed to shoot random inocent people, just because some other random dude accross the globe gave you an order.

Same situation here. Data is Ireland. Irish and EU law does apply. Law says that it's illegal to export data without owner's consent. Microsoft can't give it to US, even if US courts orders to.

And juste like you're out of US' jurisdiction, so is the data in Ireland, according to local laws.

Unless that "court order" comes from a completely different country, and ask the person to do something which is absolutely illegal in the current country of that person.
Then the person can laugh and throw the court order in the trash can. (But depending on the "completely different country" 's law, the person's car which was left back there could be seized and destroyed as a retribution).

That's exactly the situation here: A court in the *USA* issues an order to search data in *Ireland*.
No US court has any power to order whatever in the EU. They cannot force anyone in Ireland to do anything. They have no power here.
Not only that, but strict EU laws about data privacy make it *illegal* to do what the US court ask in any country of the EU (and a few other non-EU European countries). If anyone in Ireland were to do what the US asked, they would be thrown in jail for their illegal activities.

Now the court wants to harm Microsoft-US, in retaliation because Microsoft-EU choose to abide to EU-laws and not do what the US court told them to do.

Well, not exactly.

"Exercising a democratic yell on a megaphone" would be the appropriate way to describe the French way.
The small group which manage to piss off the most people is the one to obtain the attention.
Instead of having the most rich bully being at the top, you have the most annoying one.

Meanwhile, just on the other side of a border, you have countries like switzerland with a real direct democracy.
As in "it's the people who actually decide and have a final word on everything".
Want to change something ? Instead of pouring money or pissing of people, you just gather the necessary amount of signatures, and then you can submit your law propostion for voting. If it passes voting you law is passed and is enforced.
ANYONE can do it, just gather the necessary amount of signatures to be able to submit for vote.

That's what I call "Exercising the democratic voice".

Except that WebM, the format that Google has pushed, IS USING MKV as a container.

Yes. And he was saying "4x3". As in "put 12 display in an array. 3 row of 4 screens each."
You end up with a giant wall, with 4:3 aspect ratio (as each tile is square).

Then you buy 132 more displays, arrange them in 16 columns of 9 (16x9) and you can cover a building's facade with your very own 16:9 tiled jumbo diplay in LD ("ludicrous definition") and create an open-air cinema with your neightbours

But, as he mentionned, driving 144 display tiles in total is going to be a little bit complicated.
(5 display max per Radeon card. 4 Radeon cards per motherboard. 20 displays per PC Tower. You could probably driver 2 tiles per display port using splitters like matrox is down, so you need 1 PC tower per 40 tiles. So at least 4 bit PC towers to drive all this).

But totally worth so you and your neighbours can together brag about being the first "Ludicruous Definition" cinema of the city (256x the resolution of Ultra HD).

Well from a purely theoretical point of view:
it could be possible to survive on a low-carb diet, eating only proteins and fats and avoiding sugar completely.
Basically, eating only steak and salad, never bread.
(The kind of diet that bodybuilders use).

In that situation the body obtains most of its energy by burning fat and maintains blood sugar levels by gluconeogenesis.
(This metabolic regime consumes some proteins, hence the increase need of meat to avoid starvation).

But it's complicated to get correctly.
Compensating the Type 1's lack of insulin is much simpler.

That's what some think early human diet looked like before agriculture (the theory basis behind the paleo diet).
That's also used by body builders to burn fat (as mentionned above).
Before insulin that was the only way to keep Type 1 diabetics alive.
It was also recently been mentionned as a insuline-free alternative treatment. Was mentionned on /. recently.

And some goes for most other forms of video.
Making a decent video clip instead of just quickly recording something with a camera phone, is difficult.
Much more than putting some effort into a photo.

Until some startup finds a way to do the video equivalent of Instagram (i.e.: making it easy to create nice video clips) video won't be a major communication medium.

Ref

If you think that a "secure enclave" is really secure, when its implemented as a SEPARATE CORE ON THE SAME FUCKING SILICON, you really don't believe in SIGINT.
In a world where scientist have been able to guess GPG private key just by analysing signal.
Accoustic signals: Noise.
Over a smartphone's crappy mic.
(Ref).
Do you really think that a "secure" core on the same piece of silicon stands any chance?

Functionnally: They are equivalent.
- In both case, it's a payment system, and supports NFC protocol so that you can pay wirelessly just buy putting the phone next to the payment machine.

Hardware-wise: They are not exactly the same.
- Google Wallet is just a generic payment system (like PayPal, etc.) In most phone, it's simply the OS (Android) being able to talk over NFC to the payment machine. It's up to the OS and Application to hangle security any way they choose (might or might not involve hardware - most implementation do not. But some smartphone did have some form of it).
- Apple's system specifically uses a separate piece of hardware: a TPM-like chip that is secured and hardened and holds the actual banking information (which never leaves the chip). Security is by definition handled by the specific chip.The whole systems works like a wireless credit-card with a smartphone bolted next to it, the smartphone being able to act as a GUI to the credit card, but the card handling the transaction themselves.
Some Android Smartphone did in fact work exactly like that. (Had a dedicated chip which was more or less a micro credit card, which handled the NFC talk it self and the smartphone merely interfacing with the card).
- NXP is a vendor of chip that makes hardware components for payment. They've worked on Apple's chip. They are now selling this chip for android smartphone manufacturers too.

Apple's emphasis is on security: They want their "dedicated non-hackable credit-card-on-a-chip" approach.
Google's emphasis is on making the technology available everywhere. High end phone will have a chip, low-end phone will simply emulate a virtual credit card by having a piece of software talk over NFC. But it's going to be available as widely as possible.

From a security point of view:
Meh.
Google's idea isn't the most secure ever: it rellies on the OS being good at correctly isolating and sandboxing apps. But bugs happen.
Apple's idea isn't perfect either. In theory, a separate piece of hardware is easier to make tamper proof. In practice, it's just a subpart of the same piece of silicon as the rest of the system (they are SoC. System-on-chip. Nearly the whole modern smartphone is a single chip) hacker are bound to find a way to leak sensitive data (I mean, for fuck's sake: hackers have been able to deduce GPG private key by reading signals leaking out of a compute. Noise. Captured by a smartphone's mic. If they can steal your crypto just by listening caps singing over a crappy mic, do you really think that a core on the same piece of silicon is isolated enough ?!)